SPEECH.

THURSDAY, _26th August, 1852_.--The Civil and Diplomatic

Appropriation Bill being under consideration, the following amendment

was moved by Mr. Hunter, of Virginia, on the recommendation of the

Committee on Finance.

"That, where the ministerial officers of the United States have or

shall incur extraordinary expense in executing the laws thereof,

the payment of which is not specifically provided for, the

President of the United States is authorized to allow the payment

thereof, under the special taxation of the District or Circuit

Court of the District in which the said services have been or shall

be rendered, to be paid from the appropriation for defraying the

expenses of the Judiciary."

MR. SUMNER seized the opportunity for which he had been

waiting, and at once moved the following amendment to the amendment:--

"_Provided_, That no such allowance shall be authorized for any

expenses incurred in executing the Act of September 18, 1850, for

the surrender of fugitives from service or labor; which said Act is

hereby repealed."

On this he took the floor, and spoke as follows.

MR. PRESIDENT,--Here is a provision for extraordinary expenses

incurred in executing the laws of the United States. Extraordinary

expenses! Sir, beneath these specious words lurks the very subject

on which, by a solemn vote of this body, I was refused a hearing.

Here it is; no longer open to the charge of being an "abstraction,"

but actually presented for practical legislation; not introduced

by me, but by the Senator from Virginia [Mr. HUNTER], on the

recommendation of an important committee of the Senate; not

brought forward weeks ago, when there was ample time for

discussion, but only at this moment, without any reference to the

late period of the session. The amendment which I offer proposes to

remove one chief occasion of these extraordinary expenses. Beyond

all controversy or cavil it is strictly in order. And now, at last,

among these final crowded days of our duties here, but at this

earliest opportunity, I am to be heard,--not as a favor, but as a

right. The graceful usages of this body may be abandoned, but the

established privileges of debate cannot be abridged. Parliamentary

courtesy may be forgotten, but parliamentary law must prevail. The

subject is broadly before the Senate. By the blessing of God it

shall be discussed.

Sir, a severe lawgiver of early Greece vainly sought to secure

permanence for his imperfect institutions by providing that the

citizen who at any time attempted their repeal or alteration

should appear in the public assembly with a halter about his neck,

ready to be drawn, if his proposition failed. A tyrannical spirit

among us, in unconscious imitation of this antique and discarded

barbarism, seeks to surround an offensive institution with similar

safeguard. In the existing distemper of the public mind, and at

this present juncture, no man can enter upon the service which I

now undertake, without personal responsibility, such as can be

sustained only by that sense of duty which, under God, is always

our best support. That personal responsibility I accept. Before the

Senate and the country let me be held accountable for this act and

for every word which I utter.

With me, Sir, there is no alternative. Painfully convinced of

the unutterable wrong and woe of Slavery,--profoundly believing,

that, according to the true spirit of the Constitution and the

sentiments of the Fathers, it can find no place under our National

Government,--that it is in every respect _sectional_, and in no

respect _national_,--that it is always and everywhere creature and

dependant of the _States_, and never anywhere creature or dependant

of the _Nation_,--and that the _Nation_ can never, by legislative

or other act, impart to it any support, under the Constitution of

the United States,--with these convictions I could not allow this

session to reach its close without making or seizing an opportunity

to declare myself openly against the usurpation, injustice, and

cruelty of the late intolerable enactment for the recovery of

fugitive slaves. Full well I know, Sir, the difficulties of this

discussion, arising from prejudices of opinion and from adverse

conclusions strong and sincere as my own. Full well I know that

I am in a small minority, with few here to whom I can look for

sympathy or support. Full well I know that I must utter things

unwelcome to many in this body, which I cannot do without pain.

Full well I know that the institution of Slavery in our country,

which I now proceed to consider, is as sensitive as it is powerful,

possessing a power to shake the whole land, with a sensitiveness

that shrinks and trembles at the touch. But while these things

may properly prompt me to caution and reserve, they cannot change

my duty, or my determination to perform it. For this I willingly

forget myself and all personal consequences. The favor and

good-will of my fellow-citizens, of my brethren of the Senate, Sir,

grateful to me as they justly are, I am ready, if required, to

sacrifice. Whatever I am or may be I freely offer to this cause.

Here allow, for one moment, a reference to myself and my position.

Sir, I have never been a politician. The slave of principles, I

call no party master. By sentiment, education, and conviction a

friend of Human Rights in their utmost expansion, I have ever

most sincerely embraced the Democratic Idea,--not, indeed, as

represented or professed by any party, but according to its real

significance, as transfigured in the Declaration of Independence

and in the injunctions of Christianity. In this idea I see no

narrow advantage merely for individuals or classes, but the

sovereignty of the people, and the greatest happiness of all

secured by equal laws. Amidst the vicissitudes of public affairs

I shall hold fast always to this idea, and to any political party

which truly embraces it.

Party does not constrain me; nor is my independence lessened by

any relations to the office which gives me a title to be heard

on this floor. Here, Sir, I speak proudly. By no effort, by no

desire of my own, I find myself a Senator of the United States.

Never before have I held public office of any kind. With the ample

opportunities of private life I was content. No tombstone for me

could bear a fairer inscription than this: "Here lies one who,

without the honors or emoluments of public station, did something

for his fellow-men." From such simple aspirations I was taken

away by the free choice of my native Commonwealth, and placed at

this responsible post of duty, without personal obligation of any

kind, beyond what was implied in my life and published words. The

earnest friends by whose confidence I was first designated asked

nothing from me, and throughout the long conflict which ended in my

election rejoiced in the position which I most carefully guarded.

To all my language was uniform: that I did not desire to be brought

forward; that I would do nothing to promote the result; that I had

no pledges or promises to offer; that the office should seek me,

and not I the office; and that it should find me in all respects an

independent man, bound to no party and to no human being, but only,

according to my best judgment, to act for the good of all. Again,

Sir, I speak with pride, both for myself and others, when I add

that these avowals found a sympathizing response. In this spirit I

have come here, and in this spirit I shall speak to-day.

Rejoicing in my independence, and claiming nothing from party ties,

I throw myself upon the candor and magnanimity of the Senate. I

ask your attention; I trust not to abuse it. I may speak strongly,

for I shall speak openly and from the strength of my convictions.

I may speak warmly, for I shall speak from the heart. But in no

event can I forget the amenities which belong to debate, and which

especially become this body. Slavery I must condemn with my whole

soul; but here I need only borrow the language of slaveholders; nor

would it accord with my habits or my sense of justice to exhibit

them as the impersonation of the institution--Jefferson calls it

the "enormity"[103]--which they cherish. Of them I do not speak;

but without fear and without favor, as without impeachment of any

person, I assail this wrong. Again, Sir, I may err; but it will

be with the Fathers. I plant myself on the ancient ways of the

Republic, with its grandest names, its surest landmarks, and all

its original altar-fires about me.

[103] Letter to Dr. Price, August 7, 1785: Memoir, Correspondence,

etc., ed. Randolph, Vol. I. p. 269; Writings, Vol. I. p. 377.

And now, on the very threshold, I encounter the objection, that

there is a final settlement, in principle and substance, of the

question of Slavery, and that all discussion of it is closed.

Both the old political parties, by formal resolutions, in recent

conventions at Baltimore, have united in this declaration. On a

subject which for years has agitated the public mind, which yet

palpitates in every heart and burns on every tongue, which in

its immeasurable importance dwarfs all other subjects, which by

its constant and gigantic presence throws a shadow across these

halls, which at this very time calls for appropriations to meet

extraordinary expenses it has caused, they impose the rule of

silence. According to them, Sir, we may speak of everything except

that alone which is most present in all our minds.

To this combined effort I might fitly reply, that, with flagrant

inconsistency, it challenges the very discussion it pretends to

forbid. Their very declaration, on the eve of an election, is, of

course, submitted to the consideration and ratification of the

people. Debate, inquiry, discussion, are the necessary consequence.

Silence becomes impossible. Slavery, which you profess to banish

from public attention, openly by your invitation enters every

political meeting and every political convention. Nay, at this

moment it stalks into this Senate, crying, like the daughters of

the horseleech, "Give! give!"

But no unanimity of politicians can uphold the baseless assumption,

that a law, or any conglomerate of laws, under the name of

Compromise, or howsoever called, is final. Nothing can be plainer

than this,--that by no parliamentary device or knot can any

Legislature tie the hands of a succeeding Legislature, so as to

prevent the full exercise of its constitutional powers. Each

Legislature, under a just sense of its responsibility, must judge

for itself; and if it think proper, it may revise, or amend, or

absolutely undo the work of any predecessor. The laws of the Medes

and Persians are said proverbially to have been unalterable; but

they stand forth in history as a single example where the true

principles of all law have been so irrationally defied.

To make a law final, so as not to be reached by Congress, is, by

mere legislation, to fasten a new provision on the Constitution.

Nay, more; it gives to the law a character which the very

Constitution does not possess. The wise Fathers did not treat

the country as a Chinese foot, never to grow after infancy; but,

anticipating progress, they declared expressly that their great

Act is not final. According to the Constitution itself, there is

not one of its existing provisions--not even that with regard to

fugitives from labor--which may not at all times be reached by

amendment, and thus be drawn into debate. This is rational and

just. Sir, nothing from man's hands, nor law nor constitution, can

be final. Truth alone is final.

Inconsistent and absurd, this effort is tyrannical also. The

responsibility for the recent Slave Act, and for Slavery everywhere

within the jurisdiction of Congress, necessarily involves the

right to discuss them. To separate these is impossible. Like

the twenty-fifth rule[104] of the House of Representatives

against petitions on Slavery,--now repealed and dishonored,--the

Compromise, as explained and urged, is a curtailment of the actual

powers of legislation, and a perpetual denial of the indisputable

principle, that the right to deliberate is coextensive with the

responsibility for an act. To sustain Slavery, it is now proposed

to trample on _free speech_. In any country this would be grievous;

but here, where the Constitution expressly provides against

abridging freedom of speech, it is a special outrage. In vain do we

condemn the despotisms of Europe, while we borrow the rigors with

which they repress Liberty, and guard their own uncertain power.

For myself, in no factious spirit, but solemnly and in loyalty to

the Constitution, as a Senator of the United States, representing

a free Commonwealth, I protest against this wrong. On Slavery,

as on every other subject, I claim the right to be heard. That

right I cannot, I will not abandon. "Give me the liberty to know,

to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all

liberties":[105] these are glowing words, flashed from the soul

of John Milton in his struggles with English tyranny. With equal

fervor they should be echoed now by every American not already a

slave.

[104] Originally the twenty-first, adopted January 28, 1840 (26th

Cong. 1st Sess.), by Yeas 114, Nays 108; rescinded, on motion of

John Quincy Adams, December 3, 1844 (28th Cong. 2d Sess.), by Yeas

108, Nays 80. It will be observed that the vote of the opponents

of the rule was precisely the same (108) on its adoption as on its

abrogation. Obviously many of the original supporters or their

successors withheld their votes on the latter occasion. The rule in

question was in these words: "No petition, memorial, resolution,

or other paper, praying the abolition of slavery in the District

of Columbia, or any State or Territory, or the slave-trade between

the States or Territories of the United States in which it now

exists, shall be received by this House, or entertained in any way

whatever."

[105] Milton, Areopagitica: A Speech for the Liberty of Unlicensed

Printing: Prose Works, ed. Symmons, Vol. I. p. 325.

But, Sir, this effort is impotent as tyrannical. Convictions of

the heart cannot be repressed. Utterances of conscience must be

heard. They break forth with irrepressible might. As well attempt

to check the tides of Ocean, the currents of the Mississippi,

or the rushing waters of Niagara. The discussion of Slavery will

proceed, wherever two or three are gathered together,--by the

fireside, on the highway, at the public meeting, in the church. The

movement against Slavery is from the Everlasting Arm. Even now it

is gathering its forces, soon to be confessed everywhere. It may

not be felt yet in the high places of office and power, but all who

can put their ears humbly to the ground will hear and comprehend

its incessant and advancing tread.

The relations of the National Government to Slavery, though plain

and obvious, are constantly misunderstood. A popular belief at

this moment makes Slavery a national institution, and of course

renders its support a national duty. The extravagance of this

error can hardly be surpassed. An institution which our fathers

most carefully omitted to name in the Constitution, which,

according to the debates in the Convention, they refused to cover

with any "sanction," and which, at the original organization of

the Government, was merely _sectional_, existing nowhere on the

_national_ territory, is now, above all other things, blazoned as

national. Its supporters pride themselves as national. The old

political parties, while upholding it, claim to be national. A

National Whig is simply a Slavery Whig, and a National Democrat is

simply a Slavery Democrat, in contradistinction to all who regard

Slavery as a sectional institution, within the exclusive control of

the States, and with which the nation has nothing to do.

As Slavery assumes to be national, so, by an equally strange

perversion, Freedom is degraded to be sectional, and all who uphold

it, under the National Constitution, are made to share this same

epithet. Honest efforts to secure its blessings everywhere within

the jurisdiction of Congress are scouted as sectional; and this

cause, which the founders of our National Government had so much

at heart, is called _Sectionalism_. These terms, now belonging to

the commonplaces of political speech, are adopted and misapplied

by most persons without reflection. But here is the power of

Slavery. According to a curious tradition of the French language,

Louis the Fourteenth, the Grand Monarch, by an accidental error

of speech, among supple courtiers, changed the gender of a noun.

But Slavery does more. It changes word for word. It teaches men to

say _national_ instead of _sectional_, and _sectional_ instead of

_national_.

Slavery national! Sir, this is a mistake and absurdity, fit to

have a place in some new collection of Vulgar Errors, by some

other Sir Thomas Browne, with the ancient, but exploded stories,

that the toad has a gem in its head, and that ostriches digest

iron. According to the true spirit of the Constitution, and

the sentiments of the Fathers, _Slavery_, and not Freedom, is

_sectional_, while _Freedom_, and not Slavery, is _national_. On

this unanswerable proposition I take my stand, and here commences

my argument.

The subject presents itself under two principal heads: first, _the

true relations of the National Government to Slavery_, wherein it

will appear that there is no national fountain from which Slavery

can be derived, and no national power, under the Constitution, by

which it can be supported. Enlightened by this general survey,

we shall be prepared to consider, secondly, _the true nature of

the provision for the rendition of fugitives from service_, and

herein especially the unconstitutional and offensive legislation of

Congress in pursuance thereof.