SLAVERY AGITATION.
"It is painful to see the unceasing efforts to alarm the South by
imputations against the North of unconstitutional designs on the
subject of slavery. You are right, I have no doubt, in believing
that no such intermeddling disposition exists in the body of our
Northern brethren. Their good faith is sufficiently guaranteed
by the interest they have as merchants, as ship owners, and as
manufacturers, in preserving a Union with the slaveholding States.
On the other hand what madness in the South to look for greater
safety in disunion. It would be worse than jumping into the fire
for fear of the frying pan. The danger from the alarms is, that
the pride and resentment exerted by them may be an overmatch for
the dictates of prudence; and favor the project of a Southern
convention, insidiously revived, as promising by its councils,
the best securities against grievances of every sort from the
North."--So wrote Mr. Madison to Mr. Clay, in June 1833. It is a
writing every word of which is matter for grave reflection, and
the date at the head of all. It is dated just three months after
the tariff "compromise" of 1833, which, in arranging the tariff
question for nine years, was supposed to have quieted the South--put
an end to agitation, and to the idea of a Southern convention--and
given peace and harmony to the whole Union. Not so the fact--at
least not so the fact in South Carolina. Agitation did not cease
there on one point, before it began on another: the idea of a
Southern convention for one cause, was hardly abandoned before it
was "insidiously revived" upon another. I use the language of Mr.
Madison in qualifying this revival with a term of odious import: for
no man was a better master of our language than he was--no one more
scrupulously just in all his judgments upon men and things--and no
one occupying a position either personally, politically, or locally,
to speak more advisedly on the subject of which he spoke. He was
pained to see the efforts to alarm the South on the subject of
slavery, and the revival of the project for a Southern convention;
and he feared the effect which these alarms should have on the
pride and resentment of Southern people. His letter was not to
a neighbor, or to a citizen in private life, but to a public man
on the theatre of national action, and one who had acted a part
in composing national difficulties. It was evidently written for
a purpose. It was in answer to Mr. Clay's expressed belief, that
no design hostile to Southern slavery existed in the body of the
Northern people--to concur with him in that belief--and to give him
warning that the danger was in another quarter--in the South itself:
and that it looked to a dissolution of the Union. It was to warn an
eminent public man of a new source of national danger, more alarming
than the one he had just been composing.
About the same time, and to an old and confidential friend (Edward
Coles, Esq., who had been his private secretary when President),
Mr. Madison also wrote: "On the other hand what more dangerous
than nullification, or more evident than the progress it continues
to make, either in its original shape or in the disguises it
assumes? Nullification has the effect of putting powder under
the constitution and the Union, and a match in the hand of every
party to blow them up at pleasure. And for its progress, hearken
to the tone in which it is now preached: cast your eyes on its
increasing minorities in the most of the Southern States, without
a decrease in any of them. Look at Virginia herself, and read in
the gazettes, and in the proceedings of popular meetings, the
figure which the anarchical principle now makes, in contrast with
the scouting reception given to it but a short time ago. It is not
probable that this offspring of the discontents of South Carolina
will ever approach success in a majority of the States: but a
susceptibility of the contagion in the Southern States is visible:
and the danger not to be concealed, that the sympathy arising
from known causes, and the inculcated impression of a permanent
incompatibility of interests between the South and the North, may
put it in the power of popular leaders, aspiring to the highest
stations, to unite the South on some critical occasion, in a course
that will end in creating a new theatre of great though inferior
interest. In pursuing this course, the first and most obvious step
is nullification, the next secession, and the last a farewell
separation."
In this view of the dangers of nullification in its new
"disguise"--the susceptibility of the South to its contagious
influence--its fatal action upon an "inculcated incompatibility
of interests" between the North and the South--its increase in
the slave States--its progress, first to secession, and then to
"farewell separation:" in this view of the old danger under its
new disguise, Mr. Madison, then eighty-four years old, writes with
the wisdom of age, the foresight of experience; the spirit of
patriotism, and the "pain" of heart which a contemplation of the
division of those States excited which it had been the pride, the
glory, and the labor of his life to unite. The slavery turn which
was given to the Southern agitation was the aspect of the danger
which filled his mind with sorrow and misgiving:--and not without
reason. A paper published in Washington City, and in the interest
of Mr. Calhoun, was incessant in propagating the slavery alarm--in
denouncing the North--in exhorting the Southern States to unity of
feeling and concert of action as the only means of saving their
domestic institutions. The language had become current in some parts
of the South, that it was impossible to unite the Southern States
upon the tariff question: that the sugar interest in Louisiana would
prevent her from joining: that it was a mistake to have made that
issue: that the slavery question was the right one. And coincident
with this current language were many publications, urging a Southern
convention, and concert of action. Passing by all these, which might
be deemed mere newspaper articles, there was one which bore the
impress of thought and authenticity--which assumed the convention
to be a certainty, the time only remaining to be fixed, and the
cause for it to be in full operation in the Northern States. It
was published in the Charleston Mercury in 1835,--was entitled the
"Crisis"--and had the formality of a manifesto; and after dilating
upon the aggressions and encroachments of the North, proceeded thus:
"The proper time for a convention of the slaveholding States
will be when the legislatures of Pennsylvania, Massachusetts
and New-York shall have adjourned without passing laws for the
suppression of the abolition societies. Should either of these
States pass such laws, it would be well to wait till their
efficacy should be tested. The adjournment of the legislatures
of the Northern States without adopting any measures effectually
to put down Garrison, Tappan and their associates, will present
an issue which must be met by the South, or it will be vain for
us ever after to attempt any thing further than for the State
to provide for her own safety by defensive measures of her own.
If the issue presented is to be met, it can only be done by a
convention of the aggrieved States; the proceedings of which,
to be of any value, must embody and make known the sentiments
of the whole South, and contain the distinct annunciation of
our fixed and unaltered determination to obtain the redress of
our grievances, be the consequences what they may. We must have
it clearly understood that, in framing a constitutional union
with our Northern brethren, the slaveholding States consider
themselves as no more liable to any more interference with their
domestic concerns than if they had remained entirely independent
of the other States, and that, as such interference would, among
independent nations, be a just cause of war, so among members of
such a confederacy as ours, it must place the several States in
the relation towards each other of open enemies. To sum up in a
few words the whole argument on this subject, we would say that
the abolitionists can only be put down by legislation in the
States in which they exist, and this can only be brought about
by the embodied opinion of the whole South, acting upon public
opinion at the North, which can only be effected through the
instrumentality of a condition of the slaveholding States."
It is impossible to read this paragraph from the "Crisis," without
seeing that it is identical with Mr. Calhoun's report and speech
upon incendiary publications transmitted through the mail. The same
complaint against the North; the same exaction of the suppression
of abolition societies; the same penalty for omitting to suppress
them; that penalty always the same--a Southern convention, and
secession--and the same idea of the contingent foreign relation
to each other of the respective States, always treated as a
confederacy, under a compact. Upon his arrival at Washington at
the commencement of the session 1835-'36, all his conduct was
conformable to the programme laid down in the "Crisis," and the
whole of it calculated to produce the event therein hypothetically
announced; and, unfortunately, a double set of movements was then
in the process of being carried on by the abolitionists, which
favored his purposes. One of these was the mail transmission into
the slave States of incendiary publications; and it has been seen in
what manner he availed himself of that wickedness to predicate upon
it a right of Southern secession; the other was the annoyance of
Congress with a profusion of petitions for the abolition of slavery
in the District of Columbia; and his conduct with respect to these
petitions, remains to be shown. Mr. Morris, of Ohio, presented two
from that State, himself opposed to touching the subject of slavery
in the States, but deeming it his duty to present those which
applied to the District of Columbia. Mr. Calhoun demanded that they
be read; which being done,--
"He demanded the question on receiving them, which, he said, was
a preliminary question, which any member had a right to make.
He demanded it on behalf of the State which he represented;
he demanded it, because the petitions were in themselves a
foul slander on nearly one half of the States of the Union; he
demanded it, because the question involved was one over which
neither this nor the House had any power whatever; and a stop
might be put to that agitation which prevailed in so large
a section of the country, and which, unless checked, would
endanger the existence of the Union. That the petitions just
read contained a gross, false, and malicious slander, on eleven
States represented on this floor, there was no man who in his
heart could deny. This was, in itself, not only good, but the
highest cause why these petitions should not be received. Had
it not been the practice of the Senate to reject petitions
which reflected on any individual member of their body; and
should they who were the representatives of sovereign States
permit petitions to be brought there, wilfully, maliciously,
almost wickedly, slandering so many sovereign States of this
Union? Were the States to be less protected than individual
members on that floor? He demanded the question on receiving
the petitions, because they asked for what was a violation of
the constitution. The question of emancipation exclusively
belonged to the several States. Congress had no jurisdiction
on the subject, no more in this District than the State of
South Carolina: it was a question for the individual State to
determine, and not to be touched by Congress. He himself well
understood, and the people of his State should understand, that
this was an emancipation movement. Those who have moved in it
regard this District as the weak point through which the first
movement should be made upon the States. We (said Mr. C.), of
the South, are bound to resist it. We will meet this question
as firmly as if it were the direct question of emancipation in
the States. It is a movement which ought to, which must be,
arrested, _in limine_, or the guards of the constitution will
give way and be destroyed. He demanded the question on receiving
the petitions, because of the agitation which would result from
discussing the subject. The danger to be apprehended was from
the agitation of the question on that floor. He did not fear
those incendiary publications which were circulated abroad,
and which could easily be counteracted. But he dreaded the
agitation which would rise out of the discussion in Congress on
the subject. Every man knew that there existed a body of men in
the Northern States who were ready to second any insurrectionary
movement of the blacks; and that these men would be on the alert
to turn these discussions to their advantage. He dreaded the
discussion in another sense. It would have a tendency to break
asunder this Union. What effect could be brought about by the
interference of these petitioners? Could they expect to produce
a change of mind in the Southern people? No; the effect would
be directly the opposite. The more they were assailed on this
point, the more closely would they cling to their institutions.
And what would be the effect on the rising generation, but to
inspire it with odium against those whose mistaken views and
misdirected zeal menaced the peace and security of the Southern
States. The effect must be to bring our institutions into odium.
As a lover of the Union, he dreaded this discussion; and asked
for some decided measure to arrest the course of the evil. There
must, there shall be some decided step, or the Southern people
never will submit. And how are we to treat the subject? By
receiving these petitions one after another, and thus tampering,
trifling, sporting with the feelings of the South? No, no, no!
The abolitionists well understand the effect of such a course
of proceeding. It will give importance to their movements, and
accelerate the ends they propose. Nothing can, nothing will stop
these petitions but a prompt and stern rejection of them. We
must turn them away from our doors, regardless of what may be
done or said. If the issue must be, let it come, and let us meet
it, as, I hope, we shall be prepared to do."
This was new and extreme ground taken by Mr. Calhoun. To put the
District of Columbia and the States on the same footing with
respect to slavery legislation, was entirely contrary to the
constitution itself, and to the whole doctrine of Congress upon
it. The constitution gave to Congress exclusive jurisdiction over
the District of Columbia, without limitation of subjects; but it
had always refused, though often petitioned, to interfere with
the subject of slavery in the District of Columbia so long as it
existed in the two States (Maryland and Virginia) which ceded that
District to the federal government. The doctrine of Mr. Calhoun
was, therefore, new; his inference that slavery was to be attacked
in the States through the opening in the District, was gratuitous;
his "demand" (for that was the word he constantly used), that these
petitions should be refused a reception, was a harsh motion, made
in a harsh manner; his assumption that the existence of the Union
was at stake, was without evidence and contrary to evidence; his
remedy, in State resistance, was disunion; his eagerness to catch at
an "issue," showed that he was on the watch for "issues," and ready
to seize any one that would get up a contest; his language was all
inflammatory, and calculated to rouse an alarm in the slaveholding
States:--for the whole of which he constantly assumed to speak. Mr.
Morris thus replied to him:
"In presenting these petitions he would say, on the part of
the State of Ohio, that she went to the entire extent of the
opinions of the senator from South Carolina on one point. We
deny, said he, the power of Congress to legislate concerning
local institutions, or to meddle in any way with slavery in
any of the States; but we have always entertained the opinion
that Congress has primary and exclusive legislation over this
District; under this impression, these petitioners have come
to the Senate to present their petitions. The doctrine that
Congress have no power over the subject of slavery in this
District is to me a new one; and it is one that will not meet
with credence in the State in which I reside. I believe these
petitioners have the right to present themselves here, placing
their feet on the constitution of their country, when they come
to ask of Congress to exercise those powers which they can
legitimately exercise. I believe they have a right to be heard
in their petitions, and that Congress may afterwards dispose
of these petitions as in their wisdom they may think proper.
Under these impressions, these petitioners come to be heard,
and they have a right to be heard. Is not the right of petition
a fundamental right? I believe it is a sacred and fundamental
right, belonging to the people, to petition Congress for the
redress of their grievances. While this right is secured by
the constitution, it is incompetent to any legislative body to
prescribe how the right is to be exercised, or when, or on what
subject; or else this right becomes a mere mockery. If you are
to tell the people that they are only to petition on this or
that subject, or in this or that manner, the right of petition
is but a mockery. It is true we have a right to say that no
petition which is couched in disrespectful language shall be
received; but I presume there is a sufficient check provided
against this in the responsibility under which every senator
presents a petition. Any petition conveyed in such language
would always meet with his decided disapprobation. But if we
deny the right of the people to petition in this instance, I
would ask how far they have the right. While they believe they
possess the right, no denial of it by Congress will prevent them
from exercising it."
Mr. Bedford Brown, of North Carolina, entirely dissented from
the views presented by Mr. Calhoun, and considered the course he
proposed, and the language which he used, exactly calculated to
produce the agitation which he professed to deprecate. He said:
"He felt himself constrained, by a sense of duty to the State
from which he came, deeply and vitally interested as she was
in every thing connected with the agitating question which had
unexpectedly been brought into discussion that morning, to
present, in a few words, his views as to the proper direction
which should be given to that and all other petitions relating
to slavery in the District of Columbia. He felt himself more
especially called on to do so from the aspect which the question
had assumed, in consequence of the motion of the gentleman
from South Carolina [Mr. CALHOUN], to refuse to receive the
petition. He had believed from the first time he had reflected
on this subject, and subsequent events had but strengthened
that conviction, that the most proper disposition of all such
petitions was to lay them on the table, without printing. This
course, while it indicated to the fanatics that Congress will
yield no countenance to their designs, at the same time marks
them with decided reprobation by a refusal to print. But, in
his estimation, another reason gave to the motion to lay them
on the table a decided preference over any other proceedings by
which they should be met. The peculiar merit of this motion,
as applicable to this question, is, that it precludes all
debate, and would thus prevent the agitation of a subject in
Congress which all should deprecate as fraught with mischief
to every portion of this happy and flourishing confederacy.
Mr. B. said that honorable gentlemen who advocated this motion
had disclaimed all intention to produce agitation on this
question. He did not pretend to question the sincerity of their
declarations, and, while willing to do every justice to their
motives, he must be allowed to say that no method could be
devised better calculated, in his judgment, to produce such
a result. He (Mr. B.) most sincerely believed that the best
interests of the Southern States would be most consulted by
pursuing such a course here as would harmonize the feelings of
every section, and avoid opening for discussion so dangerous
and delicate a question. He believed all the senators who were
present a few days since, when a petition of similar character
had been presented by an honorable senator, had, by their
votes to lay it on the table, sanctioned the course which he
now suggested. [Mr. CALHOUN, in explanation, said that himself
and his colleague were absent from the Senate on the occasion
alluded to.] Mr. B. resumed his remarks, and said that he had
made no reference to the votes of any particular members of
that body, but what he had said was, that a similar petition
had been laid on the table without objection from any one,
and consequently by a unanimous vote of the senators present.
Here, then, was a most emphatic declaration, by gentlemen
representing the Northern States as well as those from other
parts of the Union, by this vote, that they will entertain
no attempt at legislation on the question of slavery in the
District of Columbia. Why, then, asked Mr. B., should we now
adopt a mode of proceeding calculated to disturb the harmonious
action of the Senate, which had been produced by the former
vote? Why (he would respectfully ask of honorable gentlemen
who press the motion to refuse to receive the petition) and
for what beneficial purpose do they press it? By persisting in
such a course it would, beyond all doubt, open a wide range of
discussion, it would not fail to call forth a great diversity of
opinion in relation to the extent of the right to petition under
the constitution. Nor would it be confined to that question
alone, judging from an expression which had fallen from an
honorable gentleman from Virginia [Mr. TYLER], in the course
of this debate. That gentleman had declared his preference for
a direct negative vote by the Senate, as to the constitutional
power of Congress to emancipate slaves in the District of
Columbia. He, for one, protested, politically speaking, against
opening this Pandora's box in the halls of Congress. For all
beneficial and practical purposes, an overwhelming majority
of the members representing the Northern States were, with
the South, in opposition to any interference with slavery in
the District of Columbia. If there was half a dozen in both
branches of Congress who did not stand in entire opposition to
any interference with slavery, in this District or elsewhere,
he had yet to learn it. Was it wise, was it prudent, was it
magnanimous, in gentlemen representing the Southern States, to
urge this matter still further, and say to our Northern friends
in Congress, 'Gentlemen, we all agree in the general conclusion,
that Congress should not interfere in this question, but we wish
to know your reasons for arriving at this conclusion; we wish
you to declare, by your votes, whether you arrive at this result
because you think it unconstitutional or not?' Mr. B. said that
he would yield to none in zeal in sustaining and supporting,
to the extent of his ability, what he believed to be the true
interest of the South; but he should take leave to say that,
when the almost united will of both branches of Congress, for
all practical purposes, was with us, against all interference on
this subject, he should not hazard the peace and quiet of the
country by going on a Quixotic expedition in pursuit of abstract
constitutional questions."
Mr. King, of Georgia, was still more pointed than Mr. Brown in
deprecating the course Mr. Calhoun pursued, and charging upon it
the effect of increasing the slavery agitation, and giving the
abolitionists ground to stand upon in giving them the right of
petition to defend. He said:
"This being among the Southern members a mere difference of form
in the manner of disposing of the subject, I regret exceedingly
that the senator from Carolina has thought it his duty (as he
doubtless has) to press the subject upon the consideration of
the Senate in such form as not only to permit, but in some
measure to create, a necessity for the continued agitation of
the subject. For he believed, with others, that nothing was
better calculated to increase agitation and excitement than
such motions as that of the senator from South Carolina. What
was the object of the motion? Senators said, and no doubt
sincerely, that their object was to quiet the agitation of the
subject. Well, (said Mr. K.,) my object is precisely the same.
We differ, then, only in the means of securing a common end;
and he could tell the Senators that the value of the motion as
a means would likely be estimated by its tendency to secure
the end desired. Would even an affirmative vote on the motion
quiet the agitation of the subject? He thought, on the contrary,
it would much increase it. How would it stop the agitation?
What would be decided? Nothing, except it be that the Senate
would not receive the particular memorial before it. Would that
prevent the presentation of others? Not at all; it would only
increase the number, by making a new issue for debate, which
was all the abolitionists wanted; or, at any rate, the most
they now expected. These petitions had been coming here without
intermission ever since the foundation of the government, and
he could tell the senator that if they were each to be honored
by a lengthy discussion on presentment, an honor not heretofore
granted to them, they would not only continue to come here, but
they would thicken upon us so long as the government remained
in existence. We may seek occasions (said Mr. K.) to rave about
our rights; we may appeal to the guaranties of the constitution,
which are denied; we may speak of the strength of the South,
and pour out unmeasured denunciations against the North; we
may threaten vengeance against the abolitionists, and menace
a dissolution of the Union, and all that; and thus exhausting
ourselves mentally and physically, and setting down to applaud
the spirit of our own efforts, Arthur Tappan and his pious
fraternity would very coolly remark: 'Well, that is precisely
what I wanted; I wanted agitation in the South; I wished to
provoke the "aristocratic slaveholder" to make extravagant
demands on the North, which the North could not consistently
surrender them. I wished them, under the pretext of securing
their own rights, to encroach upon the rights of all the
American people. In short, I wish to change the issue; upon the
present issue we are dead. Every movement, every demonstration
of feeling among our own people, shows that upon the present
issue the great body of the people is against us. The issue
must be changed, or the prospects of abolition are at an end.'
This language (Mr. K. said) was not conjectured, but there was
much evidence of its truth. Sir (said Mr. K.), if Southern
senators were actually in the pay of the abolition directory on
Nassau-street they could not more effectually co-operate in the
views and administer to the wishes of these enemies to the peace
and quiet of our country."
Mr. Calhoun was dissatisfied at the speeches of Mr. Brown and Mr.
King, and considered them as dividing and distracting the South in
their opposition to his motion, while his own course was to keep
them united in a case where union was so important, and in which
they stood but a handful in the midst of an overwhelming majority.
He said:
"I have heard with deep mortification and regret the speech of
the senator from Georgia; not that I suppose that his arguments
can have much impression in the South, but because of their
tendency to divide and distract the Southern delegation on this,
to us, all-momentous question. We are here but a handful in
the midst of an overwhelming majority. It is the duty of every
member from the South, on this great and vital question, where
union is so important to those whom we represent, to avoid every
thing calculated to divide or distract our ranks. I (said Mr.
C.), the Senate will bear witness, have, in all that I have
said on this subject, been careful to respect the feelings of
Southern members who have differed from me in the policy to
be pursued. Having thus acted, on my part, I must express my
surprise at the harsh expressions, to say the least, in which
the senator from Georgia has indulged."
The declaration of this overwhelming majority against the South
brought a great number of the non-slaveholding senators to their
feet, to declare the concurrence of their _States_ with the South
upon the subject of slavery, and to depreciate the abolitionists as
few in number in any of the Northern States; and discountenanced,
reprobated and repulsed wherever they were found. Among these, Mr.
Isaac Hill of New Hampshire, thus spoke:
"I do not (said he) object to many of the positions taken by
senators on the abstract question of Northern interference with
slavery in the South. But I do protest against the excitement
that is attempted on the floor of Congress, to be kept up
against the North. I do protest against the array that is made
here of the acts of a few misguided fanatics as the acts of the
whole or of a large portion of the people of the North. I do
protest against the countenance that is here given to the idea
that the people of the North generally are interfering with the
rights and property of the people of the South.
"There is no course that will better suit the few Northern
fanatics than the agitation of the question of slavery in the
halls of Congress--nothing will please them better than the
discussions which are taking place, and a solemn vote of either
branch denying them the right to prefer petitions here, praying
that slavery may be abolished in the District of Columbia. A
denial of that right at once enables them, and not without color
of truth, to cry out that the contest going on is 'a struggle
between power and liberty.'
"Believing the intentions of those who have moved simultaneously
to get up these petitions at this time, to be mischief, I
was glad to see the first petition that came in here laid on
the table without discussion, and without reference to any
committee. The motion to lay on the table precludes all debate;
and, if decided affirmatively, prevents agitation. It was with
the view of preventing agitation of this subject that I moved
to lay the second set of petitions on the table. A senator from
the South (Mr. Calhoun) has chosen a different course; he has
interposed a motion which opens a debate that may be continued
for months. He has chosen to agitate this question; and he has
presented that question, the decision of which, let senators
vote as they may, will best please the agitators who are urging
the fanatics forward.
"I have said the people of the North were more united in their
opposition to the plans of the advocates of antislavery, than on
any other subject. This opposition is confined to no political
party; it pervades every class of the community. They deprecate
all interference with the subject of slavery, because they
believe such interference may involve the existence and welfare
of the Union itself, and because they understand the obligations
which the non-slaveholding States owe to the slaveholding
States by the compact of confederation. It is the strong desire
to perpetuate the Union; it is the determination which every
patriotic and virtuous citizen has made, in no event to abandon
the 'ark of our safety,' that now impels the united North to
take its stand against the agitators of the antislavery project.
So effectually has the strong public sentiment put down that
agitation in New England, that it is now kept alive only by the
power of money, which the agitators have collected, and apply in
the hiring of agents, and in issues from presses that are kept
in their employ.
"The antislavery movement, which brings in petitions from
various parts of the country asking Congress to abolish slavery
in the District of Columbia, originates with a few persons,
who have been in the habit of making charitable religious
institutions subservient to political purposes, and who have
even controlled some of those charitable associations. The
petitions are set on foot by men who have had, and who continue
to have, influence with ministers and religious teachers of
different denominations. They have issued and sent out their
circulars calling for a united effort to press on Congress the
abolition of slavery in this District. Many of the clergymen
who have been instruments of the agitators, have done so from
no bad motive. Some of them, discovering the purpose of the
agitators--discovering that their labors were calculated to
make the condition of the slave worse, and to create animosity
between the people of the North and the South, have paused in
their course, and desisted from the further application of a
mistaken philanthropy. Others, having enlisted deeply their
feelings, still pursue the unprofitable labor. They present here
the names of inconsiderate men and women, many of whom do not
know, when they subscribe their papers, what they are asking;
and others of whom, placing implicit faith in their religious
teacher, are taught to believe they are thereby doing a work of
disinterested benevolence, which will be requited by rewards in
a future life.
"Now, sir, as much as I abhor the doings of weak or wicked men
who are moving this abolition question at the North, I yet have
not as bad an opinion of them as I have of some others who are
attempting to make of these puerile proceedings an object of
alarm to the whole South.
"Of all the vehicles, tracts, pamphlets, and newspapers, printed
and circulated by the abolitionists, there is no ten or twenty
of them that have contributed so much to the excitement as a
single newspaper printed in this city. I need not name this
paper when I inform you that, for the last five years, it has
been laboring to produce a Northern and Southern party--to fan
the flame of sectional prejudice--to open wider the breach,
to drive harder the wedge, which shall divide the North from
the South. It is the newspaper which, in 1831-'2, strove to
create that state of things, in relation to the tariff, which
would produce inevitable collision between the two sections of
the country, and which urged to that crisis in South Carolina,
terminating in her deep disgrace----
"[Mr. Calhoun here interrupted Mr. Hill, and called him to
order. Mr. H. took his seat, and Mr. Hubbard (being in the
chair) decided that the remarks of Mr. H. did not impugn the
motives of any man--they were only descriptive of the effects of
certain proceedings upon the State of South Carolina, and that
he was not out of order.]
"Mr. H. resumed: It is the newspaper which condemns or ridicules
the well-meant efforts of an officer of the government to stop
the circulation of incendiary publications in the slaveholding
States, and which designedly magnifies the number and the
efforts of the Northern abolitionists. It is the newspaper
which libels the whole North by representing the almost united
people of that region to be insincere in their efforts to
prevent the mischief of a few fanatical and misguided persons
who are engaged in the abolition cause.
"I have before me a copy of this newspaper (the _United States
Telegraph_), filled to the brim with the exciting subject. It
contains, among other things, a speech of an honorable senator
(Mr. Leigh of Virginia), which I shall not be surprised soon
to learn has been issued by thousands and tens of thousands
from the abolition mint at New-York, for circulation in the
South. Surely the honorable senator's speech, containing that
part of the Channing pamphlet, is most likely to move the
Southern slaves to a servile war, at the same time the Channing
extracts and the speech itself are most admirably calculated to
awaken the fears or arouse the indignation of their masters.
The circulation of such a speech will effect the object of
the abolitionists without trenching upon their funds. Let the
agitation be kept up in Congress, and let this newspaper be
extensively circulated in the South, filled with such speeches
and such extracts as this exhibits, and little will be left for
the Northern abolitionists to do. They need do no more than
send in their petitions: the late printer of the Senate and
his friends in Congress, will create enough of excitement to
effect every object of those who direct the movements of the
abolitionists."
At the same moment that these petitions were presented in the
Senate, their counterparts were presented in the House, with
the same declarations from Northern representatives in favor of
the rights of the South, and in depreciation of the number and
importance of the abolitionists in the North. Among these, Mr.
Franklin Pierce, of New Hampshire, was one of the most emphatic on
both points. He said:
"This was not the last memorial of the same character which
would be sent here. It was perfectly apparent that the question
must be met now, or at some future time, fully and explicitly,
and such an expression of this House given as could leave
no possible room to doubt as to the opinions and sentiments
entertained by its members. He (Mr. P.), indeed, considered the
overwhelming vote of the House, the other day, laying a memorial
of similar tenor, and, he believed, the same in terms, upon the
table, as fixing upon it the stamp of reprobation. He supposed
that all sections of the country would be satisfied with that
expression; but gentlemen seemed now to consider the vote as
equivocal and evasive. He was unwilling that any imputation
should rest upon the North, in consequence of the misguided and
fanatical zeal of a few--comparatively very few--who, however
honest might have been their purposes, he believed had done
incalculable mischief, and whose movements, he knew, received no
more sanction among the great mass of the people of the North,
than they did at the South. For one, he (Mr. P.), while he
would be the last to infringe upon any of the sacred reserved
rights of the people, was prepared to stamp with disapprobation,
in the most express and unequivocal terms, the whole movement
upon this subject. Mr. P. said he would not resume his seat
without tendering to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Mason),
just and generous as he always was, his acknowledgments for
the admission frankly made in the opening of his remarks. He
had said that, during the period that he had occupied a seat
in this House (as Mr. P. understood him), he had never known
six men seriously disposed to interfere with the rights of the
slaveholders at the South. Sir, said Mr. P., gentlemen may be
assured there was no such disposition as a general sentiment
prevailing among the people; at least he felt confidence in
asserting that, among the people of the State which he had the
honor in part to represent, there was not one in a hundred who
did not entertain the most sacred regard for the rights of
their Southern brethren--nay, not one in five hundred who would
not have those rights protected at any and every hazard. There
was not the slightest disposition to interfere with any rights
secured by the constitution, which binds together, and which he
humbly hoped ever would bind together, this great and glorious
confederacy as one family. Mr. P. had only to say that, to some
sweeping charges of improper interference, the action of the
people of the North at home, during the last year, and the vote
of their representatives here the other day, was a sufficient
and conclusive answer."
The newspaper named by Mr. Hill was entirely in the interest of Mr.
Calhoun, and the course which it followed, and upon system, and
incessantly to get up a slavery quarrel between the North and the
South, was undeniable--every daily number of the paper containing
the proof of its incendiary work. Mr. Calhoun would not reply to Mr.
Hill, but would send a paper to the Secretary's table to be read
in contradiction of his statements. Mr. Calhoun then handed to the
Secretary a newspaper containing an article impugning the statement
made by Mr. Pierce, in the House of Representatives, as to the
small number of the abolitionists in the State of New Hampshire;
which was read, and which contained scurrilous reflections on Mr.
Pierce, and severe strictures on the state of slavery in the South.
Mr. Hill asked for the title of the newspaper; and it was given,
"_The Herald of Freedom_." Mr. Hill said it was an abolition
paper, printed, but not circulated, at Concord, New Hampshire. He
said the same paper had been sent to him, and he saw in it one of
Mr. Calhoun's speeches; which was republished as good food for the
abolitionists; and said he thought the Senate was well employed in
listening to the reading of disgusting extracts from an hireling
abolition paper, for the purpose of impugning the statements of a
member of the House of Representatives, defending the South there,
and who could not be here to defend himself. It was also a breach
of parliamentary law for a member in one House to attack what was
said by a member in another. Mr. Pierce's statement had been heard
with great satisfaction by all except Mr. Calhoun; but to him it was
so repugnant, as invalidating his assertion of a great abolition
party in the North, that he could not refrain from this mode of
contradicting it. It was felt by all as disorderly and improper,
and the presiding officer then in the chair (Mr. Hubbard, from New
Hampshire) felt himself called upon to excuse his own conduct in not
having checked the reading of the article. He said:
"He felt as if an apology was due from him to the Senate, for
not having checked the reading of the paragraphs from the
newspaper which had just been read by the Secretary. He was
wholly ignorant of the contents of the paper, and could not
have anticipated the purport of the article which the senator
from South Carolina had requested the Secretary to read. He
understood the senator to say that he wished the paper to be
read, to show that the statement made by the senator from New
Hampshire, as to the feelings and sentiments of the people of
that State upon the subject of the abolition of slavery, was
not correct. It certainly would have been out of order, for any
senator to have alluded to the remarks made by a member of the
House of Representatives, in debate; and, in his judgment, it
was equally out of order to permit paragraphs from a newspaper
to be read in the Senate, which went to impugn the course of any
member of the other House; and he should not have permitted the
paper to have been read, without the direction of the Senate, if
he had been aware of the character of the article."
Mr. Calhoun said he was entitled to the floor and did not like
to be interrupted by the chair: he meant no disrespect to Mr.
Pierce, "but wished the real state of things to be known"--as if
an abolition newspaper was better authority than a statement from
a member in his place in the House. It happened that Mr. Pierce
was coming into the Senate Chamber as this reading scene was going
on; and, being greatly surprised, and feeling much aggrieved, and
having no right to speak for himself, he spoke to the author of this
View to maintain the truth of his statement against the scurrilous
contradiction of it which had been read. Mr. Benton, therefore,
stood up--
"To say a word on the subject of Mr. Pierce, the member of the
House of Representatives, from New Hampshire, whose statements
in the House of Representatives had been contradicted in the
newspaper article read at the Secretary's table. He had the
pleasure of an intimate acquaintance with that gentleman, and
the highest respect for him, both on his own account and that
of his venerable and patriotic father, who was lately Governor
of New Hampshire. It had so happened (said Mr. B.) that, in the
very moment of the reading of this article, the member of the
House of Representatives, whose statement it contradicted, was
coming into the Senate Chamber, and his whitening countenance
showed the deep emotion excited in his bosom. The statement
which that gentleman had made in the House was in the highest
degree consolatory and agreeable to the people of the
slaveholding States. He had said that not one in five hundred
in his State was in favor of the abolitionists: an expression
understood by every body, not as an arithmetical proposition
worked out by figures, but as a strong mode of declaring that
these abolitionists were few in number. In that sense it was
understood, and was a most welcome and agreeable piece of
information to the people of the slaveholding States. The
newspaper article contradicts him, and vaunts the number of the
abolitionists, and the numerous signers to their petition. Now
(said Mr. B.), the member of the House of Representatives (Mr.
Pierce) has this moment informed me that he knows nothing of
these petitions, and knows nothing to change his opinion as to
the small number of abolitionists in his State. Mr. B. thought,
therefore, that his statement ought not to be considered as
discredited by the newspaper publication; and he, for one,
should still give faith to his opinion."
In his eagerness to invalidate the statement of Mr. Pierce, Mr.
Calhoun had overlooked a solecism of action in which it involved
him. His bill to suppress the mail transmission of incendiary
publications was still before the Senate, not yet decided; and
here was matter read in the Senate, and to go forth as part of its
proceedings, the most incendiary and diabolical that had yet been
seen. This oversight was perceived by the author of this View, who,
after vindicating the statement of Mr. Pierce, went on to expose
this solecism, and--
"Took up the bill reported by the select committee on incendiary
publications, and read the section which forbade their
transmission by mail, and subjected the postmasters to fine
and loss of office, who would put them up for transmission;
and wished to know whether this incendiary publication, which
had been read at the Secretary's table, would be included in
the prohibition, after being so read, and thus becoming a part
of our debates? As a publication in New Hampshire, it was
clearly forbid; as part of our congressional proceedings would
it still be forbid? There was a difficulty in this, he said,
take it either away. If it could still be inculcated from this
floor, then the prohibition in the bill was mere child's play;
if it could not, and all the city papers which contained it
were to be stopped, then the other congressional proceedings
in the same paper would be stopped also; and thus the people
would be prevented from knowing what their representatives were
doing. It seemed to him to be but lame work to stop incendiary
publications in the villages where they were printed, and then
to circulate them from this chamber among the proceedings of
Congress; and that, issuing from this centre, and spreading to
all the points of the circumference of this extended Union, one
reading here would give it ten thousand times more notoriety
and diffusion than the printing of it in the village could do.
He concluded with expressing his wish that the reporters would
not copy into their account of debate the paper that was read.
It was too offensive to the member of the House [Mr. Pierce],
and would be too disagreeable to the people of the slaveholding
States, to be entitled to a place in our debates, and to become
a part of our congressional history, to be diffused over the
country in gazettes, and transmitted to posterity in the volumes
of debates. He hoped they would all omit it."
The reporters complied with this request, and the Congress debates
were spared the pollution of this infusion of scurrility, and the
permanent record of this abusive assault upon a member of the House
because he was a friend to the South. But it made a deep impression
upon senators; and Mr. King, of Georgia, adverted to it a few days
afterwards to show the strangeness of the scene--Southern senators
attacking their Northern friends because they defended the South. He
said:
"It was known that there was a talented, patriotic, and highly
influential member of the other House, from New Hampshire
[Mr. Pierce], to whose diligence and determined efforts he
had heard attributed, in a great degree, the present prostrate
condition of the abolitionists in that State. He had been the
open and active friend of the South from the beginning, and
had encountered the hostility of the abolitionists in every
form. He had made a statement of the strength and prospects of
the abolitionists in his State, near the commencement of the
session, that was very gratifying to the people of the South.
This statement was corroborated by one of the senators from that
State a few days after, and the senator from Carolina rose, and,
without due reflection, he was very sure, drew from his pocket
a dirty sheet, an abolition paper, containing a scurrilous
article against the member from New Hampshire, which pronounced
him an impostor and a liar. The same thing in effect had just
been repeated by the senator from Mississippi against one of the
best friends of the South, Governor Marcy, of New-York. [Here
Mr. Calhoun rose to explain, and said he had intended, by the
introduction of the paper, no disrespect to the member from
New Hampshire; and Mr. Black also rose to say he only wished
to show the course the abolitionists were pursuing, and their
future views.] Mr. King said he had been interrupted by the
senators, but corrected by neither of them. He was not attacking
their motives, but only exposing their mistakes. The article
read by his friend from Carolina was abusive of the member from
New Hampshire, and contradicted his statements. The article
read by his friend from Mississippi against Governor Marcy was
of a similar character. It abused, menaced, and contradicted
him. These abusive productions would seem to be credited and
adopted by those who used them as evidence, and incorporated
them in their speeches. Here, then, was a contest in the North
between the most open and avowed friends of the South and the
abolitionists; and we had the strange exhibition of Southern
gentlemen apparently espousing the cause of the latter, who were
continually furnishing them evidence with which to aid them in
the contest. Did gentlemen call this backing their friends? What
encouragement did such treatment afford to our friends at the
North to step forth in our behalf?"
Mr. King did not limit himself to the defence of Mr. Pierce, but
went on to deny the increase of abolitionism at the North, and to
show that it was dying out there until revived by agitation here. He
said:
"A great deal had been stated in one form or other, and in
one quarter or other, as to the numbers and increase of these
disturbers of the peace; and he did not undertake to say what
was the fact. He learned, and thought it probable, that they
had increased since the commencement of the session, and had
heard also the increase attributed to the manner in which the
subject had been treated here. However this might be, what he
insisted on was, that those base productions were no evidence of
the fact, or of any fact; and especially should not be used by
Southern men, in opposition to the statements of high-minded,
honorable men at the North, who were the active and efficient
friends of the South."
As an evidence of the manner in which the English emissary, George
Thompson, had been treated in the North, upon whose labors so much
stress had been laid in the South, Mr. King read from an English
newspaper (the Leeds Mercury), Thompson's own account of his mission
as written to his English employers; thus:
"Letters of a most distressing nature have been received from
Mr. George Thompson, the zealous and devoted missionary of
slave emancipation, who has gone from this country to the
United States, and who writes from Boston. He says that 'the
North (that is, New England, where slavery does not exist),
has universally sympathized with the South,' in opposition to
the abolitionists; that 'the North has let fall the mask;'
that 'merchants and mechanics, priests and politicians, have
alike stood forth the defenders of Southern despots, and the
furious denouncers of Northern philanthropy;' that all parties
of politics, especially the supporters of the two rivals for
the presidential office (Van Buren and Webster), vie with each
other in denouncing the abolitionists; and that even religious
men shun them, except when the abolitionists can fairly gain a
hearing from them. With regard to himself, he speaks as follows:
'Rewards are offered for my abduction and assassination; and
in every direction I meet with those who believe they would be
doing God and their country service by depriving me of life.
I have appeared in public, and some of my escapes from the
hands of my foes have been truly providential. On Friday last,
I narrowly escaped losing my life in Concord, New Hampshire.'
'Boston, September 11.--This morning a short gallows was found
standing opposite the door of my house, 23 Bay-street, in this
city, now occupied by Garrison. Two halters hung from the beam,
with the words above them, By order of Judge Lynch!'"
Mr. Hill corroborated the account which this emissary gave of his
disastrous mission, and added that he had escaped from Concord in
the night, and in woman's clothes: and then said:
"The present agitation in the North is kept up by the
application of money; it is a state of things altogether forced.
Agents are hired, disguised in the character of ministers
of the Gospel, to preach abolition of slavery where slavery
does not exist; and presses are kept in constant employment to
scatter abolition publications through the country. Deny the
right of petition to the misguided men and women who are induced
from no bad motive to petition for the abolition of slavery in
the District of Columbia, and you do more to increase their
numbers than will thousands of dollars paid to the emissaries
who traverse the country to distribute abolition tracts and to
spread abolition doctrines. Continue to debate abolition in
either branch of Congress, and you more effectually subserve
the incendiary views of the movers of abolition than any thing
they can do for themselves. It may suit those who have been
disappointed in all their political projects, to try what this
subject of abolition will now avail them. Such men will be
likely to find, in the end, that the people have too strong
attachment for that happy Union, to which we owe all our
prosperity and happiness, to be thrown from their propriety at
every agitating blast which may be blown across the land."
Mr. Webster gave his opinion in favor of receiving the petitions,
not to grant their prayer, but to yield to a constitutional right on
the part of the petitioners; and said:
"He thought they ought to be received, referred, and considered.
That was what was usually done with petitions on other
subjects, and what had been uniformly done, heretofore, with
petitions on this subject also. Those who believed they had an
undoubted right to petition, and that Congress had undoubted
constitutional authority over the subjects to which their
petitions related, would not be satisfied with a refusal to
receive the petitions, nor with a formal reception of them,
followed by an immediate vote rejecting their prayer. In
parliamentary terms there was some difference between these two
modes of proceeding, but it would be considered as little else
than a difference in mere form. He thought the question must at
some time be met, considered, and discussed. In this matter, as
in others, Congress must stand on its reasons. It was in vain
to attempt to shut the door against petitions, and expect in
that way to avoid discussion. On the presentment of the first
of these petitions, he had been of opinion that it ought to
be referred to the proper committee. He was of that opinion
still. The subject could not be stifled. It must be discussed,
and he wished it should be discussed calmly, dispassionately,
and fully, in all its branches, and all its bearings. To
reject the prayer of a petition at once, without reference or
consideration, was not respectful; and in this case nothing
could be possibly gained by going out of the usual course of
respectful consideration."
The trial votes were had upon the petition of the Society of
Friends, the Caln petition; and on Mr. Calhoun's motion to refuse
to receive it. His motion was largely rejected--35 to 10. The vote
to receive was: Messrs. Benton, Brown, Buchanan, Clay, Clayton,
Crittenden, Davis, Ewing of Illinois, Ewing of Ohio, Goldsborough,
Grundy, Hendricks, Hill, Hubbard, Kent, King of Alabama, King of
Georgia, Knight, Linn, McKean, Morris, Naudain, Niles, Prentiss,
Robbins, Robinson, Ruggles, Shepley, Southard, Swift, Tallmadge,
Tipton, Tomlinson, Wall, Webster, Wright. The nays were: Messrs.
Black, Calhoun, Cuthbert, Leigh, Moore, Nicholas, Porter, Preston,
Walker, White.
The motion to reject the petition being thus lost (only a meagre
minority of the Southern members voting for it), the motion to
reject its prayer next came on; and on that motion Mr. Calhoun
refused to vote, saying:
"The Senate has by voting to receive this petition, on the
ground on which the reception was placed, assumed the principle
that we are bound to receive petitions to abolish slavery,
whether in this District or the States; that is, to take
jurisdiction of the question of abolishing slavery whenever
and in whatever manner the abolitionists may think proper to
present the question. He considered this decision pregnant with
consequences of the most disastrous character. When and how
they were to occur it was not for him to predict; but he could
not be mistaken in the fact that there must follow a long train
of evils. What, he would ask, must hereafter be the condition
on this floor of the senators from the slaveholding States? No
one can expect that what has been done will arrest the progress
of the abolitionists. Its effects must be the opposite, and
instead of diminishing must greatly increase the number of the
petitions. Under the decision of the Senate, we of the South are
doomed to sit here and receive in silence, however outrageous
or abusive in their language towards us and those whom we
represent, the petitions of the incendiaries who are making
war on our institutions. Nay, more, we are bound, without the
power of resistance to see the Senate, at the request of these
incendiaries, whenever they think proper to petition, extend
its jurisdiction on the subject of slavery over the States as
well as this District. Thus deprived of all power of effectual
resistance, can any thing be considered more hopeless and
degrading than our situation; to sit here, year after year,
session after session, hearing ourselves and our constituents
vilified by thousands of incendiary publications in the form of
petitions, of which the Senate, by its decision, is bound to
take jurisdiction, and against which we must rise like culprits
to defend ourselves, or permit them to go uncontradicted and
unresisted? We must ultimately be not only degraded in our own
estimation and that of the world, but be exhausted and worn out
in such a contest."
This was a most unjustifiable assumption on the part of Mr. Calhoun,
to say that in voting to receive this petition, confined to slavery
in the District of Columbia, the Senate took jurisdiction of the
question in the States--jurisdiction of the question of abolishing
slavery whenever, and in whatever manner, the abolitionists might
ask. It was unjustifiable towards the Senate, and giving a false
alarm to the South. The thirty-five senators voting to receive the
petition wholly repudiated the idea of interfering with slavery in
the States. Twelve of them were from the slaveholding States, so
that Mr. Calhoun was outvoted in his own half of the Union. The
petition itself was confined to the object of emancipation and the
suppression of the slave trade in the District of Columbia, where it
alleged, and truly that Congress possessed jurisdiction; and there
was nothing either in the prayer, or in the language of the petition
to justify the inferences drawn from its reception, or to justify
the assumption that it was an insult and outrage to the senators
from the slaveholding States. It was a brief and temperate memorial
in these words:
"The memorial of Caln Quarterly Meeting of the Religious Society
of Friends, commonly called Quakers, respectfully represents:
That, having long felt deep sympathy with that portion of the
inhabitants of these United States which is held in bondage,
and having no doubt that the happiness and interests, moral and
pecuniary, of both master and slave, and our whole community,
would be greatly promoted if the inestimable right to liberty
was extended equally to all, we contemplate with extreme regret
that the District of Columbia, over which you possess entire
control, is acknowledged to be one of the greatest marts for
the traffic in the persons of human beings in the known world,
notwithstanding the principles of the constitution declare that
all men have an unalienable right to the blessing of liberty.
We therefore earnestly desire that you will enact such laws as
will secure the right of freedom to every human being residing
within the constitutional jurisdiction of Congress, and prohibit
every species of traffic in the persons of men, which in as
inconsistent in principle and inhuman in practice as the foreign
slave trade."
This was the petition. It was in favor of emancipation in the
District, and prayed the suppression of the slave trade in the
District; and neither of these objects had any relation to
emancipation or the slave trade, in the States. Mr. Preston, the
colleague of Mr. Calhoun, gave his reasons for voting to reject the
prayer of the petition, having failed in his first object to reject
the petition itself: and Mr. Davis, of Massachusetts, repulsed the
inferences and assumptions of Mr. Calhoun in consequence of the vote
to receive the petition. He denied the justice of any suggestion
that it portended mischief to the South, to the constitution, or
to the Union; or that it was to make the District the headquarters
of abolitionists, and the stepping-stone and entering wedge to the
attack of slavery in the States: and said:
"Neither the petition on which the debate had arisen, nor
any other that he had seen, proposed directly or indirectly
to disturb the Union, unless the abolition of slavery in
this District, or the suppression or regulation of the slave
trade within it, would have that effect. For himself, Mr. D.
believed no purpose could be further than this from the minds
of the petitioners. He could not determine what thoughts or
motives might be in the minds of men, but he judged by what
was revealed; and he could not persuade himself that these
petitioners were not attached to the Union and that they had
(as had been suggested) any ulterior purpose of making this
District the headquarters of future operation--the stronghold
of anti-slavery--the stepping-stone to an attack upon the
constitutional rights of the South. He was obliged to repudiate
these inferences as unjust, for he had seen no proof to sustain
them in any of the petitions that had come here. The petitioners
entertained opinions coincident with their fellow-citizens as
to the power of Congress to legislate in regard to slavery in
this District; and being desirous that slavery should cease
here, if it could be abolished upon just principles; and, if
not, that the traffic carried on here from other quarters should
be suppressed or regulated, they came here to ask Congress
to investigate the matter. This was all; and he could see
no evidence in it of a clandestine purpose to disregard the
constitution or to disturb the Union."
The vote was almost unanimous on Mr. Buchanan's motion--34 to 6; and
those six against it, not because they were in favor of granting
the prayer of the memorialists, but because they believed that
the petition ought to be referred to a committee, reported upon,
and then rejected--which was the ancient mode of treating such
petitions; and also the mode in which they were now treated in the
House of Representatives. The vote was:
"Yeas--Messrs. Benton, Black, Brown, Buchanan, Clay, Crittenden,
Cuthbert, Ewing of Illinois, Ewing of Ohio, Goldsborough,
Grundy, Hill, Hubbard, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Leigh,
Linn, McKean, Moore, Nicholas, Niles, Porter, Preston, Robbins,
Robinson, Ruggles, Shepley, Tallmadge, Tipton, Tomlinson,
Walker, Wall, White, Wright--34.
"Nays--Messrs. Davis, Hendricks, Knight, Prentiss, Swift,
Webster--6."
After this decision, Mr. Webster gave notice that he had in hand
several similar petitions, which he had forborne to present till
this one from Pennsylvania should be disposed of; and that now he
should, on an early occasion, present them, and move to dispose of
them in the way in which it had been his opinion from the first that
all such petitions should have been treated; that is, referred to a
committee for consideration and inquiry.
The action of the House of Representatives will now be seen on the
subject of these petitions; for duplicates of the same generally
went to that body; and there, under the lead of a South Carolina
member, and with large majorities of the House, they were disposed
of very differently from the way that Mr. Calhoun demanded in the
Senate, and in the way that he deemed so fatal to the slaveholding
States. Mr. Henry L. Pinckney, of the Charleston district, moved
that it be--
"_Resolved_, That all the memorials which have been offered,
or may hereafter be presented to this House, praying for the
abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia; and also the
resolutions offered by an honorable member from Maine (Mr.
Jarvis), with the amendment thereto proposed by an honorable
member from Virginia (Mr. Wise), together with every other
paper or proposition that may be submitted in relation to the
subject, be referred to a select committee, with instructions to
report: that Congress possesses no constitutional authority to
interfere in any way with the institution of slavery in any of
the States of this confederacy: and that in the opinion of this
House, Congress ought not to interfere, in any way, with slavery
in the District of Columbia, because it would be a violation
of the public faith, unwise, impolitic, and dangerous to the
Union. Assigning such reasons for these conclusions, as, in the
judgment of the committee, may be best calculated to enlighten
the public mind, to allay excitement, to repress agitation, to
secure and maintain the just rights of the slave-holding States,
and of the people of this District, and to restore harmony and
tranquillity amongst the various sections of this Union."
On putting the question the motion was divided, so as to have a
separate vote on the different propositions of the resolve; and
each was carried by large, and some by nearly unanimous majorities.
On the first division, To refer all the memorials to a select
committee, the vote was 174 to 48. On the second division, That
Congress possesses no constitutional authority to interfere, in
any way, with the institution of slavery in any of the States,
the vote was 201 to 7--the seven negatives being Mr. John Quincy
Adams, Mr. Harmer Denny of Pennsylvania, Mr. William Jackson,
Mr. Horace Everett of Vermont, Mr. Rice Garland of Louisiana,
Mr. Thomas Glascock of Georgia, Mr. William Jackson, Mr. John
Robertson of Virginia; and they, because opposed to voting on such
a proposition, deemed gratuitous and intermeddling. On the third
division, of the resolve, That Congress ought not to interfere in
any way with slavery in the District of Columbia, the vote stood
163 to 47. And on the fourth division, giving as reasons for such
non-interference, Because it would be a violation of the public
faith, unwise, impolitic, and dangerous to the Union, the vote
was, 127 to 75. On the last division, To assign reasons for this
report, the vote stood 167 to 6. So the committee was ordered, and
consisted of Mr. Pinckney, Mr. Hamer of Ohio, Mr. Pierce of New
Hampshire, Mr. Hardin of Kentucky, Mr. Jarvis of Maine, Mr. Owens of
Georgia, Mr. Muhlenberg of Pennsylvania, Mr. Dromgoole of Virginia,
and Mr. Turrill of New-York. The committee reported, and digested
their report into two resolutions, _first_, That Congress possesses
no constitutional authority to interfere, in any way, with the
institution of slavery in any State of this confederacy. _Secondly_,
That Congress ought not to interfere in any way with slavery in the
District of Columbia. And, "for the purpose of arresting agitation,
and restoring tranquillity to the public mind," they recommended
the adoption of this resolve: "That all petitions, memorials,
resolutions, propositions, or papers relating in any way to the
subject of slavery, or the abolition of slavery, shall, without
either being printed or referred, be laid upon the table; and that
no further action whatever be had upon them." All these resolutions
were adopted; and the latter one by a vote of 117 to 68; so that
the House came to the same course which the Senate had taken in
relation to these memorials. Mr. Adams, whose votes, taken by
themselves, might present him as acting with the abolitionists, was
entirely opposed to their objects, and was governed by a sense of
what appeared to him to be the right of petition, and also the most
effectual way of putting an end to an agitation which he sincerely
deprecated. And on this point it is right that he should be heard
for himself, as speaking for himself when Mr. Pinckney's motion was
before the House. He then said:
"But, sir, not being in favor of the object of the petitions,
I then gave notice to the House and to the country, that upon
the supposition that these petitions had been transmitted to me
under the expectation that I should present them, I felt it my
duty to say, I should not support them. And, sir, the reason
which I gave at that time for declining to support them was
precisely the same reason which the gentleman from Virginia
now gives for reconsidering this motion--namely, to keep the
discussion of the subject out of the House. I said, sir, that
I believed this discussion would be altogether unprofitable to
the House and to the country; but, in deference to the sacred
right of petition, I moved that these fifteen petitions, all
of which were numerously signed, should be referred to the
Committee on the District of Colombia, at the head of which
was, at that time, a distinguished citizen of Virginia now, I
regret to say--and the whole country has occasion to regret--no
more. These petitions were thus referred, and, after a short
period of time, the chairman of the Committee on the District
of Columbia made a report to this House, which report was read,
and unanimously accepted; and nothing more has been heard of
these petitions from that day to this. In taking the course I
then took, I was not sustained by the unanimous voice of my own
constituents; there were many among them, persons as respectable
and as entitled to consideration as any others, who disapproved
of the course I pursued on that occasion.
"Attempts were made within the district I then represented
to get up meetings of the people to instruct me to pursue
a different course, or to multiply petitions of the same
character. These efforts were continued during the whole of that
long session of Congress; but I am gratified to add, without any
other result than that, from one single town of the district
which I had the honor to represent, a solitary petition was
forwarded before the close of the session, with a request that
I would present it to the House. Sir, I did present it, and it
was referred to the same Committee on the District of Columbia,
and I believe nothing more has been heard of it since. From
the experience of this session, I was perfectly satisfied
that the true and only method of keeping this subject out of
discussion was, to take that course; to refer all petitions of
this kind to the Committee on the District of Columbia, or some
other committee of the House, to receive their report, and to
accept it unanimously. This does equal justice to all parties
in the country; it avoids the discussion of this agitating
question on the one hand, and, on the other, it pays a due
respect to the right of the constituent to petition. Two years
afterwards, similar petitions were presented, and at that time
an effort made, without success, to do that which has now been
done successfully in one instance. An effort was made to lay
these petitions on the table; the House did not accede to the
proposition: they referred the petitions as they had been before
referred, and with the same result. For, from the moment that
these petitions are referred to the Committee on the District of
Columbia, they go to the family vault 'of all the Capulets,' and
you will never hear of them afterwards.
"At the first session of the last Congress, a gentleman from
the State of New-York, a distinguished member of this House,
now no longer here, which I regret to say, although I do not
doubt that his place is well supplied, presented one or more
petitions to this effect, and delivered a long and eloquent
speech of two hours in support of them. And what was the
result? He was not answered: not a word was said, but the vote
of the House was taken; the petitions were referred to the
Committees on the District, and we have heard nothing more of
them since. At the same session, or probably at the very last
session, a distinguished member of this House, from the State
of Connecticut, presented one or more petitions to the same
effect, and declared in his place that he himself concurred in
all the opinions expressed. Did this declaration light up the
flame of discord in this House? Sir, he was heard with patience
and complacency. He moved the reference of the petitions to the
Committee on the District of Columbia, and there they went to
sleep the sleep of death. Mr. Adams, speaking from recollection,
was [the reporter is requested by him to state] mistaken with
respect to the reference of the petitions presented at the last
session of Congress to the committee. They were then for the
first time laid on the table, as was the motion to print one of
them. At the preceding session of the last Congress, as at all
former times, all such petitions had been referred to committees
and printed when so desired. Why not adopt the same course
now? Here is a petition which has been already referred to the
Committee on the District of Columbia. Leave it there, and, my
word for it, sir, you will have just such a result as has taken
place time after time before. Your Committee on the District
certainly is not an abolition committee. You will have a fit,
proper, and able report from them; the House, _sub silentio_,
will adopt it, and you will hear no more about it. But if you
are to reconsider the vote, and to lay these petitions on the
table; if you come to the resolution that this House will not
receive any more petitions, what will be the consequence? In a
large portion of this country every individual member who votes
with you will be left at home at the next election, and some one
will be sent who is not prepared to lay these petitions on the
table."
There was certainly reason in what Mr. Adams proposed, and
encouragement to adopt his course, from the good effect which had
already attended it in other cases; and from the further good effect
which he affirmed, that, in taking that course, the committee and
the House would have come to the same conclusion by a unanimous,
instead of a divided vote, as at present. His course was also
conformable to that of the earliest action of Congress upon the
subject. It was in the session of Congress of 1789-'90--being the
first under the constitution--that the two questions of abolishing
the foreign slave trade, and of providing for domestic emancipation,
came before it; and then, as in the case of the Caln Memorial, from
the Religious Society of Friends, there was discussion as to the
mode of acting upon it--which ended in referring the memorial to a
special committee, without instructions. That committee, a majority
being from the non-slaveholding States, reported against the
memorial on both points; and on the question of emancipation in the
States, the resolve which the committee recommended (after having
been slightly altered in phraseology), read thus: "_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 to provide any regulations therein which humanity
and true policy may require._" And under this resolve, and this
treatment of the subject, the slavery question was then quieted;
and remained so until revived in our own time. In the discussion
which then took place Mr. Madison was entirely in favor of sending
the petition to a committee; and thought the only way to get up an
agitation in the country, would be by opposing that course. He said:
"The question of sending the petition to a committee was no
otherwise important than as gentlemen made it so by their
serious opposition. Had they permitted the commitment of the
memorial, as a matter of course, no notice would have been taken
of it out of doors: it could never have been blown up into a
decision of the question respecting the discouragement of the
African slave trade, nor alarm the owners with an apprehension
that the general government were about to abolish slavery
in all the States. Such things are not contemplated by any
gentleman, but they excite alarm by their extended objections
to committing the memorials. The debate has taken a serious
turn; and it will be owing to this alone if an alarm is created:
for, had the memorial been treated in the usual way, it would
have been considered, as a matter of course; and a report might
have been made so as to give general satisfaction. If there was
the slightest tendency by the commitment to break in upon the
constitution, he would object to it: but he did not see upon
what ground such an event could be apprehended. The petition did
not contemplate even a breach of the constitution: it prayed, in
general terms, for the interference of Congress so far as they
were constitutionally authorized."
This chapter opens and concludes with the words of Mr. Madison. It
is beautiful to behold the wise, just, and consistent course of
that virtuous and patriotic man--the same from the beginning to
the ending of his life; and always in harmony with the sanctity of
the laws, the honor and interests of his country, and the peace
of his fellow-citizens. May his example not be lost upon us. This
chapter has been copious on the subject of slavery. It relates
to a period when a new point of departure was taken on the slave
question; when the question was carried into Congress with avowed
alternatives of dissolving the Union; and conducted in a way to show
that dissolution was an object to be attained, not prevented; and
this being the starting point of the slavery agitation which has
since menaced the Union, it is right that every citizen should have
a clear view of its origin, progress, and design. From the beginning
of the Missouri controversy up to the year 1835, the author of this
View looked to the North as the point of danger from the slavery
agitation: since that time he has looked to the South for that
danger, as Mr. Madison did two years earlier. Equally opposed to it
in either quarter, he has opposed it in both.