We published, not long ago, an extract from a speech delivered by John
Quincy Adams in Congress in 1842, in which that eminent statesman
confidently announced the doctrine, that in a state of war, civil or
servile, in the Southern States, Congress has full and plenary power
over the whole subject of slavery; martial law takes the place of
civil laws and municipal institutions, slavery among the rest, and
"not only the President of the United States, but the Commander of the
Army, has power to order the universal emancipation of the slaves."
Mr. Adams was, in 1842, under the ban of the slaveholders, who were
trying to censure him or expel him from the House for presenting a
petition in favor of the dissolution of the Union. Lest it may be
thought that the doctrine announced at this time was thrown out
hastily and offensively, and for the purpose of annoying and
aggravating his enemies, and without due consideration, it may be
worth while to show that six years previous, in May, 1836, Mr. Adams
held the same opinions, and announced them as plainly as in 1842.
Indeed, it is quite likely that this earlier announcement of these
views was the cause of the secret hostility to the ex-President, which
broke out so rancorously in 1842. We have before us a speech by Mr.
Adams, on the joint resolution for distributing rations to the
distressed fugitives from Indian hostilities in the States of Alabama
and Georgia, delivered in the House of Representatives, May 25, 1836,
and published at the office of the National Intelligencer. We quote
from it the following classification of the powers of Congress and
the Executive:--
"There are, then, Mr. Chairman, in the authority of Congress and of
the Executive, two classes of powers, altogether different in their
nature, and often incompatible with each other--the war power and
the peace power. The peace power is limited by regulations and
restricted by provisions prescribed within the Constitution itself.
The war power is limited only by the laws and usages of nations. This
power is tremendous: it is strictly constitutional, but it breaks
down every barrier so anxiously erected for the protection of
liberty, of property, and of life. This, sir, is the power which
authorizes you to pass the resolution now before you, and, in my
opinion, no other."
After an interruption, Mr. Adams returned to this subject, and went
on to say:--
"There are, indeed, powers of peace conferred upon Congress which
also come within the scope and jurisdiction of the laws of nations,
such as the negotiation of treaties of amity and commerce, the
interchange of public ministers and consuls, and all the personal and
social intercourse between the individual inhabitants of the United
States and foreign nations, and the Indian tribes, which require the
interposition of any law. But the powers of war are all regulated by
the laws of nations, and are subject to no other limitation...It
was upon this principle that I voted against the resolution reported
by the slavery committee, 'that Congress possess no constitutional
authority to interfere, in any way, with the institution of slavery
in any of the States of this Confederacy,' to which resolution most
of those with whom I usually concur, and even my own colleagues in
this House, gave their assent. I do not admit that there is, even
among the peace powers of Congress, no such authority; but in war,
there are many ways by which Congress not only have the authority,
but ARE BOUND TO INTERFERE WITH THE INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY IN THE
STATES. The existing law prohibiting the importation of slaves into
the United States from foreign countries is itself an interference
with the institution of slavery in the States. It was so considered
by the founders of the Constitution of the United States, in which it
was stipulated that Congress should not interfere, in that way, with
the institution, prior to the year 1808.
"During the late war with Great Britain, the military and naval
commanders of that nation issued proclamations, inviting the slaves
to repair to their standard, with promises of freedom and of
settlement in some of the British colonial establishments. This
surely was an interference with the institution of slavery in the
States. By the treaty of peace, Great Britain stipulated to evacuate
all the forts and places in the United States, without carrying away
any slaves. If the Government of the United States had no power to
interfere, in any way, with the institution of slavery in the States,
they would not have had the authority to require this stipulation. It
is well known that this engagement was not fulfilled by the British
naval and military commanders; that, on the contrary, they did carry
away all the slaves whom they had induced to join them, and that the
British Government inflexibly refused to restore any of them to their
masters; that a claim of indemnity was consequently instituted in
behalf of the owners of the slaves, and was successfully maintained.
All that series of transactions was an interference by Congress with
the institution of slavery in the States in one way--in the way of
protection and support. It was by the institution of slavery alone
that the restitution of slaves, enticed by proclamations into the
British service, could be claimed as property. But for the
institution of slavery, the British commanders could neither have
allured them to their standard, nor restored them otherwise than as
liberated prisoners of war. But for the institution of slavery, there
could have been no stipulation that they should not be carried away
as property, nor any claim of indemnity for the violation of that
engagement."
If this speech had been made in 1860 instead of 1836, Mr. Adams
would not have been compelled to rely upon these comparatively
trivial and unimportant instances of interference by Congress and
the President for the support and protection of slavery. For the
last twenty years, the support and protection of that institution has
been, to use Mr. Adams's words at a later day, the vital and
animating spirit of the Government; and the Constitution has been
interpreted and administered as if it contained an injunction upon
all men, in power and out of power, to sustain and perpetuate
slavery. Mr. Adams goes on to state how the war power may be used:--
"But the war power of Congress over the institution of slavery in
the States is yet far more extensive. Suppose the case of a servile
war, complicated, as to some extent it is even now, with an
Indian war; suppose Congress were called to raise armies, to supply
money from the whole Union to suppress a servile insurrection: would
they have no authority to interfere with the institution of slavery?
The issue of a servile war may be disastrous; it may become
necessary for the master of the slave to recognize his emancipation
by a treaty of peace; can it for an instant be pretended that
Congress, in such a contingency, would have no authority to interfere
with the institution of slavery, in any way, in the States? Why, it
would be equivalent to saying that Congress have no constitutional
authority to make peace. I suppose a more portentous case, certainly
within the bounds of possibility--I would to God I could say, not
within the bounds of probability--"
Mr. Adams here, at considerable length, portrays the danger then
existing of a war with Mexico, involving England and the European
powers, bringing hostile armies and fleets to our own Southern
territory, and inducing not only a foreign war, but an Indian, a
civil, and a servile war, and making of the Southern States "the
battle-field upon which the last great conflict will be fought
between Slavery and Emancipation." "Do you imagine (he asks) that
your Congress will have no constitutional authority to interfere with
the institution of slavery, in any way, in the States of this
Confederacy? Sir, they must and will interfere with it--perhaps to
sustain it by war, perhaps to abolish it by treaties of peace; and
they will not only possess the constitutional power so to interfere,
but they will be bound in duty to do it, by the express provisions of
the Constitution itself. From the instant that your slaveholding
States become the theatre of a war, civil, servile, or foreign, from
that instant, the war powers of Congress extend to interference with
the institution of slavery, in every way by which it can be
interfered with, from a claim of indemnity for slaves taken or
destroyed, to the cession of States burdened with slavery to a
foreign power."--New York Tribune.