MAIL CIRCULATION OF INCENDIARY PUBLICATIONS.
Mr. Calhoun moved that so much of the President's message as related
to the mail transmission of incendiary publications be referred
to a select committee. Mr. King, of Alabama, opposed the motion,
urging that the only way that Congress could interfere would be by
a post-office regulation; and that all such regulation properly
referred itself to the committee on post-offices and post-roads. He
did not look to the particular construction of the committee, but
had no doubt the members of that committee could see the evil of
these incendiary transmissions through the mails, and would provide
a remedy which they should deem constitutional, proper and adequate;
and he expressed a fear that, by giving the subject too much
importance, an excitement might be got up. Mr. Calhoun replied that
the Senator from Alabama had mistaken his object--that it was not to
produce any unnecessary excitement, but to adopt such a course as
would secure a committee which would calmly and dispassionately go
into an examination of the whole subject; which would investigate
the character of those publications, to ascertain whether they were
incendiary or not; and, if so, on that ground to put a check on
their transmission through the mails. He could not but express his
astonishment at the objection which had been taken to his motion,
for he knew that the Senator from Alabama felt that deep interest in
the subject which pervaded the feelings of every man in the South.
He believed that the post-office committee would be fully occupied
with the regular business which would be brought before them; and
it was this consideration, and no party feeling, which had induced
him to make his motion. Mr. Grundy, chairman of the committee on
post-offices and post-roads, said that his position was such as to
have imposed silence upon him, if that silence might not have been
misunderstood. In reply to the objection that a majority of the
committee were not from the slave States, that circumstance might
be an advantage; it might give the greater weight to their action,
which it was known would be favorable to the object of the motion.
He would say that the federal government could do but little on
this subject except through a post-office regulation, and thereby
aiding the efficiency of the State laws. He did not desire to see
any power exercised which would have the least tendency to interfere
with the sovereignty of the States. Mr. Calhoun adhering to his
desire for a select committee, and expressing his belief that a
great constitutional question was to be settled, and that the crisis
required calmness and firmness, and the action of a committee that
came mainly from the endangered part of the Union--his request was
granted; and a committee of five appointed, composed as he desired;
namely, Mr. Calhoun chairman, Mr. King of Georgia, Mr. Mangum
of North Carolina, Mr. Davis of Massachusetts, and Mr. Lewis F.
Linn of Missouri. A bill and a report were soon brought in by the
committee--a bill subjecting to penalties any post-master who should
knowingly receive and put into the mail any publication, or picture
touching the subject of slavery, to go into any State or territory
in which the circulation of such publication, or picture, should
be forbid by the State laws. When the report was read Mr. Mangum
moved the printing of 5000 extra copies of it. This motion brought a
majority of the committee to their feet, to disclaim their assent to
parts of the report; and to absolve themselves from responsibility
for its contents. A conversational debate ensued on this point, on
which Mr. Davis, Messrs. King of Alabama and Georgia, Mr. Linn and
Mr. Calhoun thus expressed themselves:
"Mr. Davis said that, as a motion had been made to print the
paper purporting to be a report from the select committee of
which he was a member, he would remark that the views contained
in it did not entirely meet his approbation, though it contained
many things which he approved of. He had risen for no other
purpose than to make this statement, lest the impression should
go abroad with the report that he assented to those portions of
it which did not meet his approbation."
"Mr. King, of Georgia, said that, lest the same misunderstanding
should go forth with respect to his views, he must state that
the report was not entirely assented to by himself. However,
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Calhoun), in making this
report, had already stated that the majority of the committee
did not agree to the whole of it, though many parts of it were
concurred in by all."
"Mr. Davis said he would add further, that he might have taken
the usual course, and made an additional report, containing all
his views on the subject, but thought it hardly worth while, and
he had contented himself with making the statement that he had
just made."
"Mr. King, of Alabama, said this was a departure from the usual
course--by it a minority might dissent; and yet, when the report
was published, it would seem to be a report of the committee of
the Senate, and not a report of two members of it. It was proper
that the whole matter should go together with the bill, that the
report submitted by the minority might be read with the bill,
to show that the reading of the report was not in conflict with
the principles of the bill reported. He thought the senator from
North Carolina (Mr. Mangum) had better modify his motion, so as
to have the report and bill published together."
"Mr. Linn remarked that, being a member of the committee, it
was but proper for him to say that he had assented to several
parts of the report, though he did not concur with it in all its
parts. Should it become necessary, he would, when the subject
again came before the Senate, explain in what particulars he
had coincided with the views given in the report, and how far
he had dissented from them. The bill, he said, had met with his
approbation."
"Mr. Calhoun said he hoped his friend from North Carolina would
modify his motion, so as to include the printing of the bill
with the report. It would be seen, by comparing both together,
that there was no _non sequitur_ in the bill, coming as it did
after this report."
"Mr. King, of Alabama, had only stated his impressions from
hearing the report and bill read. It appeared to him unusual
that a report should be made by a minority, and merely
acquiesced in by the committee, and that the bill should be
adverse to it."
"Mr. Davis said the report was, as he understood it to be read
from the chair, the report of the committee. He had spoken for
himself only, and for nobody else, lest the impression might go
abroad that he concurred in all parts of the report, when he
dissented from some of them."
"Mr. Calhoun said that a majority of the committee did not
concur in the report, though there were two members of it,
himself and the gentleman from North Carolina, who concurred
throughout; three other gentlemen concurred with the greater
part of the report, though they dissented from some parts of it;
and two gentlemen concurred also with some parts of it. As to
the bill, two of the committee would have preferred a different
one, though they had rather have that than none at all; another
gentleman was opposed to it altogether. The bill, however, was a
natural consequence of the report, and the two did not disagree
with each other."
The parts of the report which were chiefly exceptionable were two:
1. The part which related to the nature of the federal government,
as being founded in "compact;" which was the corner-stone of the
doctrine of nullification, and its corollary that the laws of
nations were in full force between the several States, as sovereign
and independent communities except as modified by the compact; 2.
The part that argued, as upon a subsisting danger, the evils by an
abolition of slavery in the slave States by interference from other
States. On the first of these points the report said:
"That the States which form our Federal Union are sovereign and
independent communities, bound together by a constitutional
compact, and are possessed of all the powers belonging to
distinct and separate States, excepting such as are delegated
to be exercised by the general government, is assumed as
unquestionable. The compact itself expressly provides that all
powers not delegated are reserved to the States and the people.
To ascertain, then, whether the power in question is delegated
or reserved, it is only necessary to ascertain whether it is to
be found among the enumerated powers or not. If it be not among
them, it belongs, of course, to the reserved powers. On turning
to the constitution, it will be seen that, while the power of
defending the country against external danger is found among
the enumerated, the instrument is wholly silent as to the power
of defending the internal peace and security of the States; and
of course, reserves to the States this important power, as it
stood before the adoption of the constitution, with no other
limitation, as has been stated, except such as are expressly
prescribed by the instrument itself. From what has been stated,
it may be inferred that the right of a State to defend itself
against internal dangers is a part of the great, primary, and
inherent right of self-defence, which, by the laws of nature,
belongs to all communities; and so jealous were the States of
this essential right, without which their independence could not
be preserved, that it is expressly provided by the constitution,
that the general government shall not assist a State, even in
case of domestic violence, except on the application of the
authorities of the State itself; thus excluding, by a necessary
consequence, its interference in all other cases.
"Having now shown that it belongs to the slaveholding States,
whose institutions are in danger, and not to Congress, as is
supposed by the message, to determine what papers are incendiary
and intended to excite insurrection among the slaves, it remains
to inquire, in the next place, what are the corresponding duties
of the general government, and the other States, from within
whose limits and jurisdiction their institutions are attacked; a
subject intimately connected with that with which the committee
are immediately charged, and which, at the present juncture,
ought to be fully understood by all the parties. The committee
will begin with the first. It remains next to inquire into the
duty of the States from within whose limits and jurisdiction
the internal peace and security of the slaveholding States are
endangered. In order to comprehend more fully the nature and
extent of their duty, it will be necessary to make a few remarks
on the relations which exist between the States of our Federal
Union, with the rights and obligations reciprocally resulting
from such relations. It has already been stated that the States
which compose our Federal Union are sovereign and independent
communities, united by a constitutional compact. Among its
members the laws of nations are in full force and obligation,
except as altered or modified by the compact; and, of course,
the States possess, with that exception, all the rights, and
are subject to all the duties, which separate and distinct
communities possess, or to which they are subject. Among these
are comprehended the obligation which all States are under to
prevent their citizens from disturbing the peace or endangering
the security of other States; and in case of being disturbed
or endangered, the right of the latter to demand of the former
to adopt such measures as will prevent their recurrence, and
if refused or neglected, to resort to such measures as its
protection may require. This right remains, of course, in
force among the States of this Union, with such limitations
as are imposed expressly by the constitution. Within their
limits, the rights of the slaveholding States are as full to
demand of the States within whose limits and jurisdiction their
peace is assailed, to adopt the measures necessary to prevent
the same, and if refused or neglected, to resort to means to
protect themselves, as if they were separate and independent
communities."
This part of the report was that which, in founding the federal
government in compact, as under the old articles of the
confederation, and in bringing the law of nations to apply between
the States as independent and sovereign communities, except where
limited by the compact, was supposed to contain the doctrine of
nullification and secession; and the concluding part of the report
is an argument in favor of the course recommended in the _Crisis_
in the event that New-York, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania did not
suppress the abolition societies. The report continues:
"Their professed object is the emancipation of slaves in the
Southern States, which they propose to accomplish through
the agencies of organized societies, spread throughout the
non-slaveholding States, and a powerful press, directed mainly
to excite, in the other States, hatred and abhorrence against
the institutions and citizens of the slaveholding States, by
addresses, lectures, and pictorial representations, abounding
in false and exaggerated statements. If the magnitude of the
mischief affords, in any degree, the measure by which to judge
of the criminality of a project, few have ever been devised
to be compared with the present, whether the end be regarded,
or the means by which it is proposed to be accomplished. The
blindness of fanaticism is proverbial. With more zeal than
understanding, it constantly misconceives the nature of the
object at which it aims, and towards which it rushes with
headlong violence, regardless of the means by which it is to
be effected. Never was its character more fully exemplified
than in the present instance. Setting out with the abstract
principle that slavery is an evil, the fanatical zealots come
at once to the conclusion that it is their duty to abolish
it, regardless of all the disasters which must follow. Never
was conclusion more false or dangerous. Admitting their
assumption, there are innumerable things which, regarded in
the abstract, are evils, but which it would be madness to
attempt to abolish. Thus regarded, government itself is an
evil, with most of its institutions intended to protect life
and property, comprehending the civil as well as the criminal
and military code, which are tolerated only because to abolish
them would be to increase instead of diminishing the evil. The
reason is equally applicable to the case under consideration,
to illustrate which, a few remarks on slavery, as it actually
exists in the Southern States, will be necessary.
"He who regards slavery in those States simply under the
relation of master and slave, as important as that relation is,
viewed merely as a question of property to the slaveholding
section of the Union, has a very imperfect conception of the
institution, and the impossibility of abolishing it without
disasters unexampled in the history of the world. To understand
its nature and importance fully, it must be borne in mind that
slavery, as it exists in the Southern States (including under
the Southern all the slaveholding States), involves not only
the relation of master and slave, but, also, the social and
political relations of two races, of nearly equal numbers, from
different quarters of the globe, and the most opposite of all
others in every particular that distinguishes one race of men
from another. Emancipation would destroy these relations--would
divest the masters of their property, and subvert the relation,
social and political, that has existed between the races from
almost the first settlement of the Southern States. It is not
the intention of the committee to dwell on the pecuniary aspect
of this vital subject, the vast amount of property involved,
equal at least to $950,000,000; the ruin of families and
individuals; the impoverishment and prostration of an entire
section of the Union, and the fatal blow that would be given to
the productions of the great agricultural staples, on which the
commerce, the navigation, the manufactures, and the revenue of
the country, almost entirely depend. As great as these disasters
would be, they are nothing, compared to what must follow the
subversion of the existing relation between the two races, to
which the committee will confine their remarks. Under this
relation, the two races have long lived in peace and prosperity,
and if not disturbed, would long continue so to live. While the
European race has rapidly increased in wealth and numbers, and
at the same time has maintained an equality, at least, morally
and intellectually, with their brethren of the non-slaveholding
States; the African race has multiplied with not less rapidity,
accompanied by great improvement, physically and intellectually,
and the enjoyment of a degree of comfort with which the laboring
class in few countries can compare, and confessedly greatly
superior to what the free people of the same race possess in the
non-slaveholding States. It may, indeed, be safely asserted,
that there is no example in history in which a savage people,
such as their ancestors were when brought into the country,
have ever advanced in the same period so rapidly in numbers
and improvement. To destroy the existing relations would be to
destroy this prosperity, and to place the two races in a state
of conflict, which must end in the expulsion or extirpation of
one or the other. No other can be substituted, compatible with
their peace or security. The difficulty is in the diversity of
the races. So strongly drawn is the line between the two, in
consequence of it, and so strengthened by the force of habit,
and education, that it is impossible for them to exist together
in the same community, where their numbers are so nearly equal
as in the slaveholding States, under any other relation than
which now exists. Social and political equality between them is
impossible. No power on earth can overcome the difficulty. The
causes resisting lie too deep in the principles of our nature
to be surmounted. But, without such equality, to change the
present condition of the African race, were it possible, would
be but to change the form of slavery. It would make them the
slaves of the community, instead of the slaves of individuals,
with less responsibility and interest in their welfare on the
part of the community than is felt by their present masters;
while it would destroy the security and independence of the
European race, if the African should be permitted to continue
in their changed condition within the limits of those States.
They would look to the other States for support and protection,
and would become, virtually, their allies and dependents; and
would thus place in the hands of those States the most effectual
instrument to destroy the influence and control the destiny of
the rest of the Union. It is against this relation between the
two races that the blind and criminal zeal of the abolitionists
is directed--a relation that now preserves in quiet and
security more than 6,500,000 of human beings, and which cannot
he destroyed without destroying the peace and prosperity of
nearly half the States of the Union, and involving their entire
population in a deadly conflict, that must terminate either in
the expulsion or extirpation of those who are the object of the
misguided and false humanity of those who claim to be their
friends. He must be blind, indeed, who does not perceive that
the subversion of a relation which must be followed with such
disastrous consequences can only be effected by convulsions that
would devastate the country, burst asunder the bonds of Union,
and ingulf in a sea of blood the institutions of the country. It
is madness to suppose that the slaveholding States would quietly
submit to be sacrificed. Every consideration--interest, duty,
and humanity, the love of country, the sense of wrong, hatred
of oppressors, and treacherous and faithless confederates,
and finally despair--would impel them to the most daring and
desperate resistance in defence of property, family, country,
liberty, and existence. But wicked and cruel as is the end
aimed at, it is fully equalled by the criminality of the means
by which it is proposed to be accomplished. These, as has been
stated, consist in organized societies and a powerful press,
directed mainly with a view to excite the bitterest animosity
and hatred of the people of the non-slaveholding States against
the citizens and institutions of the slaveholding States. It
is easy to see to what disastrous results such means must
tend. Passing over the more obvious effects, their tendency to
excite to insurrection and servile war, with all its horrors,
and the necessity which such tendency must impose on the
slaveholding States to resort to the most rigid discipline and
severe police, to the great injury of the present condition
of the slaves, there remains another, threatening incalculable
mischief to the country. The inevitable tendency of the means
to which the abolitionists have resorted to effect their object
must, if persisted in, end in completely alienating the two
great sections of the Union. The incessant action of hundreds
of societies, and a vast printing establishment, throwing
out daily thousands of artful and inflammatory publications,
must make, in time, a deep impression on the section of the
Union where they freely circulate, and are mainly designed to
have effect. Tho well-informed and thoughtful may hold them
in contempt, but the young, the inexperienced, the ignorant,
and thoughtless, will receive the poison. In process of time,
when the number of proselytes is sufficiently multiplied, the
artful and profligate, who are ever on the watch to seize on
any means, however wicked and dangerous, will unite with the
fanatics, and make their movements the basis of a powerful
political party, that will seek advancement by diffusing, as
widely as possible, hatred against the slaveholding States. But,
as hatred begets hatred, and animosity animosity, these feelings
would become reciprocal, till every vestige of attachment
would cease to exist between the two sections, when the Union
and the constitution, the offspring of mutual affection and
confidence, would forever perish. Such is the danger to which
the movements of the abolitionists expose the country. If the
force of the obligation is in proportion to the magnitude of the
danger, stronger cannot be imposed, than is at present, on the
States within whose limits the danger originates, to arrest its
further progress--a duty they owe, not only to the States whose
institutions are assailed, but to the Union and constitution, as
has been shown, and, it may be added, to themselves."
The insidiousness of this report was in the assumption of an actual
impending danger of the abolition of slavery in all the slave
States--the destruction of nine hundred and fifty millions of
property--the ocean of blood to be shed--the war of extermination
between two races--and the necessity for extraordinary means to
prevent these dire calamities; when the fact was, that there was
not one particle of any such danger. The assumption was contrary to
fact: the report was inflammatory and disorganizing: and if there
was any thing enigmatical in its conclusions, it was sufficiently
interpreted in the contemporaneous publications in the Southern
slave States, which were open in their declarations that a cause for
separation had occurred, limited only by the conduct of the free
States in suppressing within a given time the incendiary societies
within their borders. This limitation would throw the responsibility
of disunion upon the non-slaveholding States failing to suppress
these societies: for disunion, in that case, was foreshadowed in
another part of this report, and fully avowed in contemporary
Southern publications. Thus the report said:
"Those States, on the other hand, are not only under all
the obligations which independent communities would be, to
adopt such measures, but also under the obligation which the
constitution superadds, rendered more sacred, if possible, by
the fact that, while the Union imposes restrictions on the right
of the slaveholding States to defend themselves, it affords the
medium through which their peace and security are assailed. It
is not the intention of the committee to inquire what those
restrictions are, and what are the means which, under the
constitution, are left to the slaveholding States to protect
themselves. The period has not yet come, and they trust never
will, when it may be necessary to decide those questions; but
come it must, unless the States whose duty it is to suppress
the danger shall see in time its magnitude and the obligations
which they are under to adopt speedy and effectual measures
to arrest its further progress. That the full force of this
obligation may be understood by all parties, the committee
propose, in conclusion, to touch briefly on the movements of
the abolitionists, with the view of showing the dangerous
consequences to which they must lead if not arrested."
These were ominous intimations, to receive their full interpretation
elsewhere, and indissolubly connecting themselves with the late
disunion attitude of South Carolina--the basis of discontent only
changed. Mr. King of Georgia said that positions had been assumed
and principles insisted upon by Mr. Calhoun, not only inconsistent
with the bill reported, but he thought inconsistent with the
"existence of the Union itself, and which if established and
carried into practice, must hastily end in its dissolution." Mr.
Calhoun in his reply pretty well justified these conclusions of
the Georgia senator. He made it a point that the non-slaveholding
States had done nothing yet to suppress the incendiary societies
within their limits; and joining that non-action of these States
with a refusal of Congress to pass this bill, he looked upon it as
in vain to expect security or protection for the slaveholding States
except from themselves--from State interposition, as authorized
in the Virginia resolutions of 1798; and as recently carried out
by South Carolina in her nullification proceedings; and declared
that nothing was wanted but "concert" among themselves to place
their domestic institutions, their peace and security under their
own protection and beyond the reach of danger. All this was thus
intelligibly, and ominously stated in his reply to Mr. King:
"Thus far (I say it with regret) our just hopes have not been
realized. The legislatures of the South, backed by the voice
their constituents expressed through innumerable meetings,
have called upon the non-slaveholding States to repress the
movements made within the jurisdiction of those States against
their peace and security. Not a step has been taken; not a law
has been passed, or even proposed; and I venture to assert that
none will be; not but what there is a favorable disposition
towards us in the North, but I clearly see the state of
political parties there presents insuperable impediments to
any legislation on the subject. I rest my opinion on the fact
that the non-slaveholding States, from the elements of their
population, are, and will continue to be, divided and distracted
by parties of nearly equal strength; and that each will always
be ready to seize on every movement of the other which may give
them the superiority, without much regard to consequences,
as affecting their own States, and much less, remote and
distant sections. Nor have we been less disappointed as to the
proceedings of Congress. Believing that the general government
has no right or authority over the subject of slavery, we had
just grounds to hope Congress would refuse all jurisdiction in
reference to it, in whatever form it might be presented. The
very opposite course has been pursued. Abolition petitions have
not only been received in both Houses, but received on the most
obnoxious and dangerous of all grounds--that we are bound to
receive them; that is, to take jurisdiction of the question
of slavery whenever the abolitionists may think proper to
petition for its abolition, either here or in the States. Thus
far, then, we of the slaveholding States have been grievously
disappointed. One question still remains to be decided that
is presented by this bill. To refuse to pass this bill would
be virtually to co-operate with the abolitionists--would be
to make the officers and agents of the post-office department
in effect their agents and abettors in the circulation of
their incendiary publications, in violation of the laws of the
States. It is your unquestionable duty, as I have demonstrably
proved, to abstain from their violation; and, by refusing or
neglecting to discharge that duty, you would clearly enlist,
in the existing controversy, on the side of the abolitionists
against the Southern States. Should such be your decision,
by refusing to pass this bill, I shall say to the people of
the South, look to yourselves--you have nothing to hope from
others. But I must tell the Senate, be your decision what it
may, the South will never abandon the principles of this
bill. If you refuse co-operation with our laws, and conflict
should ensue between your and our law, the Southern States will
never yield to the superiority of yours. We have a remedy in
our hands, which, in such events, we shall not fail to apply.
We have high authority for asserting that, in such cases,
'State interposition is the rightful remedy'--a doctrine first
announced by Jefferson--adopted by the patriotic and republican
State of Kentucky by a solemn resolution, in 1798, and finally
carried out into successful practice on a recent occasion, ever
to be remembered, by the gallant State which I, part, have the
honor to represent. In this well-tested and efficient remedy,
sustained by the principles developed in the report and asserted
in this bill, the slaveholding States have an ample protection.
Let it be fixed, let it be riveted in every Southern mind, that
the laws of the slaveholding States for the protection of their
domestic institutions are paramount to the laws of the general
government in regulation of commerce and the mail, and that the
latter must yield to the former in the event of conflict; and
that, if the government should refuse to yield, the States have
a right to interpose, and we are safe. With these principles,
nothing but concert would be wanting to bid defiance to the
movements of the abolitionists, whether at home or abroad, and
to place our domestic institutions, and, with them, our security
and peace, under our own protection, and beyond the reach of
danger."
These were very significant intimations. Congress itself was to
become the ally of the abolitionists, and enlist in their cause, if
it did not pass his bill, which was opposed by Southern senators and
founded upon a minority report of a Southern committee selected by
Mr. Calhoun himself. It was well known it was not to pass; and in
view of that fact it was urged upon the South to nullify and secede.
Thus, within two short years after the "compromise" of 1833
had taken Mr. Calhoun out of the hands of the law, he publicly
and avowedly relapsed into the same condition; recurring again
to secession for a new grievance; and to be resorted to upon
contingencies which he knew to be certain; and encouraged in
this course by the success of the first trial of strength with
the federal government. It has been told at the proper place--in
the chapter which gave the secret history of the compromise of
1833--that Mr. Webster refused to go into that measure, saying that
the time had come to try the strength of the constitution and of
the government: and it now becomes proper to tell that Mr. Clay,
after seeing the relapse of Mr. Calhoun, became doubtful of the
correctness of his own policy in that affair; and often said to his
friends that, "in looking back upon the whole case, he had seriously
doubted the policy of his interference." Certainly it was a most
deplorable interference, arresting the process of the law when it
was on the point of settling every thing without hurting a hair of
any man's head, and putting an end to nullification for ever; and
giving it a victory, real or fancied, to encourage a new edition of
the same proceedings in a far more dangerous and pervading form. But
to return to the bill before the Senate.
"Mr. Webster addressed the Senate at length in opposition to
the bill, commencing his argument against what he contended was
its vagueness and obscurity, in not sufficiently defining what
were the publications the circulation of which it intended to
prohibit. The bill provided that it should not be lawful for
any deputy postmaster, in any State, territory, or district of
the United States, knowingly to deliver to any person whatever,
any pamphlet, newspaper, handbill, or other printed paper or
pictorial representation, touching the subject of slavery,
where, by the laws of the said State, district, or territory,
their circulation was prohibited. Under this provision, Mr.
W. contended that it was impossible to say what publications
might not be prohibited from circulation. No matter what
was the publication, whether for or against slavery, if it
touched the subject in any shape or form, it would fall under
the prohibition. Even the constitution of the United States
might be prohibited; and the person who was clothed with the
power to judge in this delicate matter was one of the deputy
postmasters, who, notwithstanding the difficulties with which
he was encompassed in coming to a correct decision, must decide
correctly, under pain of being removed from office. It would be
necessary, also, he said, for the deputy postmasters referred to
in this bill, to make themselves acquainted with all the various
laws passed by the States, touching the subject of slavery, and
to decide on them, no matter how variant they might be with
each other. Mr. W. also contended that the bill conflicted with
that provision in the constitution which prohibited Congress
from passing any law to abridge the freedom of speech or of the
press. What was the liberty of the press? he asked. It was the
liberty of printing as well as the liberty of publishing, in all
the ordinary modes of publication; and was not the circulation
of papers through the mails an ordinary mode of publication?
He was afraid that they were in some danger of taking a step
in this matter that they might hereafter have cause to regret,
by its being contended that whatever in this bill applies to
publications touching slavery, applies to other publications
that the States might think proper to prohibit; and Congress
might, under this example, be called upon to pass laws to
suppress the circulation of political, religious, or any other
description of publications which produced excitement in the
States. Was this bill in accordance with the general force and
temper of the constitution and its amendments? It was not in
accordance with that provision of the instrument under which
the freedom of speech and of the press was secured. Whatever
laws the State legislatures might pass on the subject, Congress
was restrained from legislating in any manner whatever, with
regard to the press. It would be admitted, that if a newspaper
came directed to him, he had a property in it; and how could any
man, then, take that property and burn it without due form of
law? and he did not know how this newspaper could be pronounced
an unlawful publication, and having no property in it, without
a legal trial. Mr. W. argued against the right to examine into
the nature of publications sent to the post-office, and said
that the right of an individual in his papers was secured to
him in every free country in the world. In England, it was
expressly provided that the papers of the subject shall be free
from all unreasonable searches and seizures--language, he said,
to be found in our constitution. This principle established
in England, so essential to liberty, had been followed out in
France, where the right of printing and publishing was secured
in the fullest extent; the individual publishing being amenable
to the laws for what he published; and every man printed and
published what he pleased, at his peril. Mr. Webster went on,
at some length, to show that the bill was contrary to that
provision of the constitution which prohibits Congress to pass
any law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press."
Mr. Clay spoke against the bill, saying:
"The evil complained of was the circulation of papers having a
certain tendency. The papers, unless circulated, did no harm,
and while in the post-office or in the mail, they were not
circulated--it was the circulation solely which constituted the
evil. It was the taking them out of the mail, and the use that
was to be made of them, that constituted the mischief. Then it
was perfectly competent to the State authorities to apply the
remedy. The instant that a prohibited paper was handed out,
whether to a citizen or sojourner, he was subject to the laws
which might compel him either to surrender them or burn them.
He considered the bill not only unnecessary, but as a law of
a dangerous, if not a doubtful, authority. It was objected
that it was vague and indefinite in its character; and how is
that objection got over? The bill provided that it shall not
be lawful for any deputy postmaster, in any State, territory,
or district of the United States, knowingly to deliver to any
person whatever, any pamphlet, newspaper, handbill, or other
printed paper or pictorial representation, touching the subject
of slavery, where, by the laws of the said State, territory,
or district, their circulation is prohibited. Now, what could
be more vague and indefinite than this description? Now, could
it be decided, by this description, what publications should
be withheld from distribution? The gentleman from Pennsylvania
said that the laws of the States would supply the omission. He
thought the senator was premature in saying that there would be
precision in State laws, before he showed it by producing the
law. He had seen no such law, and he did not know whether the
description in the bill was applicable or not. There was another
objection to this part of the bill; it applied not only to the
present laws of the States, but to any future laws that might
pass. Mr. C. denied that the bill applied to the slaveholding
States only; and went on to argue that it could be applied to
all the States, and to any publication touching the subject of
slavery whatever, whether for or against it, if such publication
was only prohibited by the laws of such State. Thus, for
instance, a non-slaveholding State might prohibit publications
in defence of the institution of slavery, and this bill would
apply to it as well as to the laws of the slaveholding States;
but the law would be inoperative: it declared that the deputy
postmaster should not be amenable, unless he knowingly shall
deliver, &c. Why, the postmaster might plead ignorance, and of
course the law would be inoperative.
"But he wanted to know whence Congress derived the power to pass
this law. It was said that it was to carry into effect the laws
of the States. Where did they get such authority? He thought
that their only authority to pass laws was in pursuance of the
constitution; but to pass laws to carry into effect the laws
of the States, was a most prolific authority, and there was no
knowing where it was to stop; it would make the legislation of
Congress dependent upon the legislation of twenty-four different
sovereignties. He thought the bill was of a most dangerous
tendency. The senator from Pennsylvania asked if the post-office
power did not give them the right to regulate what should be
carried in the mails. Why, there was no such power as that
claimed in the bill; and if they passed such a law, it would
be exercising a most dangerous power. Why, if such doctrine
prevailed, the government might designate the persons, or
parties, or classes, who should have the benefit of the mails,
excluding all others."
At last the voting came on; and, what looks sufficiently curious on
the outside view, there were three tie votes successively--two on
amendments, and one on the engrossment of the bill. The two ties on
amendments stood fifteen to fifteen--the absentees being eighteen:
one third of the Senate: the tie on engrossment was eighteen to
eighteen--the absentees being twelve: one fourth of the Senate. It
was Mr. Calhoun who called for the yeas and nays on each of these
questions. It was evident that there was a design to throw the
bill into the hands of the Vice-President--a New-Yorker, and the
prominent candidate for the presidency. In committee of the whole he
did not vote in the case of a tie; but it was necessary to establish
an equilibrium of votes there to be ready for the immediate vote in
Senate on the engrossment; and when the committee tie was deranged
by the accession of three votes on one side, the equilibrium was
immediately re-established by three on the other. Mr. Van Buren,
at the moment of this vote (on the engrossment) was out of the
chair, and walking behind the colonnade back of the presiding
officer's chair. My eyes were wide open to what was to take place.
Mr. Calhoun, not seeing him, eagerly and loudly asked where was the
Vice-President? and told the Sergeant-at-arms to look for him. But
he needed no looking for. He was within hearing of all that passed,
and ready for the contingency: and immediately stepping up to his
chair, and standing up, promptly gave the casting vote in favor of
the engrossment. I deemed it a political vote, that is to say, given
from policy; and I deemed it justifiable under the circumstances.
Mr. Calhoun had made the rejection of the bill a test of alliance
with Northern abolitionists, and a cause for the secession of the
Southern States: and if the bill had been rejected by Van Buren's
vote, the whole responsibility of its loss would have been thrown
upon him and the North; and the South inflamed against those States
and himself--the more so as Mr. White, of Tennessee, the opposing
democratic candidate for the presidency, gave his votes for the
bill. Mr. Wright also, as I believe, voted politically, and on all
the votes both in the committee and the Senate. He was the political
and the personal friend of the Vice-President, most confidential
with him, and believed to be the best index to his opinions. He was
perfectly sensible of his position, and in every vote on the subject
voted with Mr. Calhoun. Several other senators voted politically,
and without compunction, although it was a bad bill, as it was known
it would not pass. The author of this View would not so vote. He was
tired of the eternal cry of dissolving the Union--did not believe
in it--and would not give a repugnant vote to avoid the trial. The
tie vote having been effected, and failed of its expected result,
the Senate afterwards voted quite fully on the final passage of the
bill, and rejected it--twenty-five to nineteen: only four absent.
The yeas were: Messrs. Black, Bedford, Brown, Buchanan, Calhoun,
Cuthbert of Georgia, Grundy, King of Alabama, King of Georgia,
Mangum, Moore, Nicholas of Louisiana, Alexander Porter, Preston of
South Carolina, Rives, Robinson, Tallmadge, Walker of Mississippi,
White of Tennessee, Silas Wright. The nays were: Messrs. Benton,
Clay, Crittenden, Davis of Massachusetts, Ewing of Illinois, Ewing
of Ohio, Goldsborough of Maryland, Hendricks, Hubbard, Kent, Knight,
Leigh, McKean of Pennsylvania, Thomas Morris of Ohio, Naudain
of Delaware, Niles of Connecticut, Prentiss, Ruggles, Shepley,
Southard, Swift, Tipton, Tomlinson, Wall of New Jersey, Webster:
majority six against the bill; and seven of them, if the solecism
may be allowed, from the slave States. And thus was accomplished one
of the contingencies in which "State interposition" was again to
be applied--the "rightful remedy of nullification" again resorted
to--and the "domestic institutions" of the Southern States, by
"concert" among themselves, "to be placed beyond the reach of
danger."