Mr. J. WILLIAMS called for the order of the day on the bill for
organizing and disciplining the militia of the United States.
Mr. GALLATIN thought it better that the House should again go into a
Committee of the Whole on the bill for an amicable settlement of limits
with Georgia, and for the erection of a government in the Mississippi
Territory, as that subject had already undergone some discussion, and
the bill had been reported with the information to obtain which it had
been committed.
The latter business was preferred, and the House accordingly went into a
Committee of the Whole on the subject; when Mr. MILLEDGE'S amendment
being under consideration, for adding to the section for appointing a
provisional Government in the Natchez country, "after the consent of the
Legislature of Georgia shall have been obtained,"
Mr. MILLEDGE observed, that the select committee had now reported all
the documents on which the United States claimed a right to this
territory. As to the title of Georgia, he should not enter into an
inquiry as to that. He would only remark, that the State of Georgia was
as tenacious of her rights as any State in the Union. But he thought it
would not be improper to examine the pretended claim of the United
States to this country. Looking into the journals of the Senate, he
found that on the 3d of March, 1795, a resolution was passed directing
the Attorney General to inquire into and make a report on the subject of
the title of the United States to land in Georgia. No doubt the Attorney
General not only examined the records of the State of Georgia, but those
of the United States, and obtained all the information which he was able
to do in the United States; but not finding sufficient ground upon which
to found a title, he applied to Mr. Bayard, our Commissioner in London,
who obtained a certificate on the subject from a Mr. Chalmers, Secretary
to the Board of Trade and Plantations. Twelve months after he was
directed to do so, the Attorney General made a report on the subject;
but none of the documents which he reported went to establish the claim
of the United States; nor any thing which tends to show that a cession
of West Florida was ever made. But he now found among the papers got
from the Senate, a letter addressed to Mr. Read of the Senate, from Mr.
Livingston of New York, informing him that he encloses an extract from
the instructions given by the King of Great Britain to Governor Chester.
But Mr. Livingston was not known as an official character; and this
document was neither official nor certified. Yet this is the ground upon
which the United States claim this tract of country. Before the General
Government proceeded to erect a temporary government, it ought to have
better information with respect to the nature of its claim; for, to
attempt to establish a government without the consent of Georgia, he
thought would be stepping beyond the constitution, two clauses of which
he quoted. He hoped the general powers placed in Congress for the
defence of the country would not be resorted to in order to sanction the
proceeding. It was said that the inhabitants of the district of country
alluded to were in a situation which called for immediate attention. He
allowed that it would be proper to pay early attention to them; but he
thought, inconvenient as it might be, the erecting of a government might
be deferred until the consent of the Legislature of Georgia could be
obtained. It ought to be remembered that the State of Georgia is a
member of the Union, and that it is her interest to make the cession,
and he had no doubt she would do so. The convention of that State meet
in May, and if application was made to them, he had no doubt the
Legislature would be called together, and consent might be obtained by
the month of July. He was confident the State of Georgia is desirous of
promoting the interests of the United States, and that she is firmly
attached to the Government; all its regulations had been constantly
carried into effect there; and her consent to the establishment of a
provisional government being obtained, every difficulty would be
obviated.
Mr. HARPER did not feel any anxiety to question the desire of the State
of Georgia to promote the interests of the United States, and he was
glad to be informed by her Representative, that she was so well disposed
to the General Government, to which assertion he gave the fullest
credit. He, therefore, should not oppose the motion of the gentleman on
the ground that the State of Georgia would be likely to throw any
obstacles in the way of the proposed temporary government; and he should
be far from supposing, that, by the erection of such a government, the
United States would assume an extra-judicial right to the territory. He
was of opinion that the United States possessed the right to it, and
that the most undeniable evidence of the right existed; but that
evidence was not now before the House, and if it were, they were not the
proper body to decide the question. He believed the amendment ought to
be rejected on the ground of policy. The bill went to provide a
temporary government, but contained an express clause that the
establishment of this government shall not affect the rights of Georgia
with respect to her right of the jurisdiction or soil of this
territory--consequently, the fears of the gentleman are groundless in
this respect. What, then, is the nature of the amendment? It is to
prevent the erection of a temporary government in a district of country
containing upwards of 5,000 souls, lying far beyond the ordinary
jurisdiction of any State, with an immense wilderness intervening, in
which are two nations of Indians, and in the neighborhood of the
territory of a foreign nation, with whom, though we are at present at
peace, when we recollect the connection subsisting between that nation
and another with whom we have differences of a serious nature, we cannot
reckon upon as lasting. Yet this remote and vulnerable corner of the
Union is to be left defenceless for an indefinite period of time, lest
we should possibly give umbrage to the State of Georgia, by providing a
temporary government there before the dispute on the subject of limits
is settled. And whatever may be the good disposition of Georgia towards
the United States, it would require considerable time to obtain the
consent proposed. Their Legislature do not meet till next winter. It was
true, as had been stated, that their convention met in May, and they
might, if they thought proper, call an extraordinary meeting of the
Legislature; but this could not be relied upon. Besides, he saw no
necessity for so much punctilio in this case, for if any State were to
suffer a part of its territory, within its ordinary jurisdiction, to lie
in a defenceless state, the General Government would be warranted in
stepping in to defend it, and certainly they might do it in a case like
the present, where no jurisdiction is exercised. And if this was not
done, the petition of these people set forth, that however unwilling
they should be to do so, they should be obliged to pass over to the
Spanish dominions.
Mr. H. said, he did not wish to have touched upon the question of right;
but as the gentleman from Georgia had said we had none, he felt himself
obliged to say a few words upon that point. He allowed the committee had
not before them evidence of the right which would be admissible in a
court of law; but though it were not such as would be admitted in a
court of law, had it therefore no weight? It was at least equal to what
was every day received by the committees of the House. The question was,
whether the papers before them afforded reason to believe that legal
evidence of the title did exist? It was a copy of a commission and
instructions given by the King of Great Britain to Governor Chester, of
West Florida, in the year 1770, furnished by the gentleman who was
Secretary to the Governor at that time, and whose duty it was to keep
the records of that Government. But the gentleman from Georgia said,
search had been made in the offices of the British Government for the
original, of which this paper was a copy, and it could not be found. But
this was no proof it did not exist. If it does exist, legal evidence may
be obtained from it, and this paper shows that the Natchez country was
included within the territory of West Florida, and that it ceased in the
year 1770 to be a part of Georgia. He believed, however, this question
ought not now to be acted upon; but that from necessity, and the
exigencies of the case, a temporary government ought immediately to be
provided for this district of country, and afterwards settle the point
of right with Georgia by negotiation; and if it was found in the end
that the United States had no title to it, the Government which had been
established could be withdrawn.
But it was stated that the Legislature of Georgia would readily consent
that the United States should become possessed of this country. But what
were the terms upon which they proposed to cede it? They required, as
one of the conditions, a million and a half of dollars in six per cent.
stock, and as another (which was infinitely harder, since it might not
be in our power to comply with it, as it depended upon the will of the
Indians) that the United States will guarantee the relinquishment of the
Indian claim to the land on the east side of the Chatahoochee, within a
certain number of years. There is little hope, therefore, that the State
of Georgia will propose any terms to which the United States can agree,
as it had been seen that the Legislature of that State had rejected a
bill by a great majority, which proposed the price to be one million of
dollars with the other condition. Of course it would be very imprudent
to rest the establishment of a government in this quarter upon an
agreement to terms like these.
Besides, the amendment would affect the right claimed by the United
States. To wait for this consent would be tantamount to confessing we
had no right, and arm Georgia with a strong weapon against us in the
final settlement.
Mr. H. contended that there was nothing in the constitution which could
prevent the proposed measure, since it was absolutely necessary to
preserve the people from falling into anarchy, and to prevent a foreign
Government from putting arms into their hands. It was also a quarter of
the Union which it was necessary to preserve, if we wished to secure the
free navigation of the Mississippi, which we had lately obtained by the
Spanish treaty; for if this country were invaded by the Indians, or
involved in civil war, we could not have the benefit of the navigation
of that river. He hoped, therefore, when so many considerations were
opposed to it, the amendment would be disagreed to.
Mr. NICHOLAS understood from the gentleman from South Carolina, that it
was not intended to insist upon the title of the United States to the
territory in question; and if they were not ripe to decide that the land
is the property of the United States, he thought they ought not to
establish a Government there without paying some respect to the rights
of Georgia, by obtaining her consent, as it might prevent that amicable
settlement of which we had at present the prospect. If that State set
the value upon the land which had been mentioned, would it not excite
the utmost jealousy in that country to take forcible possession of it?
To do this would certainly be to establish an influence in favor of the
United States, which would be fatal to the claim of Georgia. No argument
had been adduced to show the right of the United States to this
territory, but merely to show the convenience of the measure. The
gentleman from South Carolina might as well say that a certain district
in Virginia is not so well governed as it might be, and, as the people
would be happier under the Government of the United States, propose to
take possession of it. But it was said Georgia had not begun to govern
this territory. Neither have the United States. She may, for aught we
know, be preparing to do it now. He thought there was not a shadow of
pretence for taking the course proposed, without first consulting the
Legislature of Georgia. He hoped the amendment would be agreed to.
Mr. J. WILLIAMS said it appeared to him, that if this amendment were to
prevail, the bill might as well be voted out altogether. The bill had
two objects, viz: a settlement of limits, and the fixing of a temporary
government. It was clear to him, from the papers before the committee,
that the United States had a clear title to the country in question,
and, if this was not the case, there was a saving clause in favor of the
Georgia claim. He thought that State ought to be happy at the idea of
the United States fixing a government there, as it would assist them in
their defence against the Indians. If gentlemen turned to the acts of
Congress, it would be found what a vast expense the United States had
heretofore been put to in defending the frontier of that country. He
thought that State had been dealt with in a very favorable manner. It
was not long since $100,000 were paid to their militia for defending
their frontier. He complimented the gentleman from Georgia for having
advocated so ably the cause of his State. But he thought that State
ought to come forward and show what title she had to the country. It had
been ceded to the United States by the Spanish Treaty, and the
inhabitants there had a claim upon the General Government for
protection, and surely if the State of Georgia for ever refused to give
its consent to a government being established there, they were not for
ever to be without government. The people there had petitioned Congress
for a government, of which doubtless the State of Georgia was
acquainted; and they ought to come forward in the business. Their
silence proved to him that they had no title to that country. Mr. W.
referred to the manner in which other cessions had been made to the
Union, and said he thought Georgia ought to rejoice at the proposed
establishment, as it would not only be benefiting that State, but the
Union at large.
Mr. MACON said if the bill was intended to be conformable to the title,
the amendment ought certainly to be agreed to; as, if the United States
undertook to establish a government at the Natchez, without the consent
of Georgia, it could not be said to be amicably done. This, he said, was
neither the proper time nor place of deciding to whom this territory
belongs. The great object ought to be to get a government there, and not
to talk about what had been done for Georgia. And if the consent of
Georgia could be obtained previous to the establishment of this
government, it was certainly desirable that it should be obtained. This
would not injure the claim of either. When this was done, some mode
might be agreed upon by which the dispute at present subsisting, might
be settled. This course would prevent any difficulties, and the consent
might be obtained by the time the government could take effect.
Mr. OTIS said if the object of the present bill, could be obtained in a
mode which would preserve the rights of all parties as they at present
stand, such a course would be preferable to that which should appear to
relinquish the right of one of the parties. It struck him that this
might be effected by the bill as it now stands. The United States
assumed their right to the land, yet they do not say they mean to turn a
deaf ear to the claim of Georgia. But, if the amendment were adopted, it
would go to relinquish the title of the United States, and this, he
thought, would be an excess of complaisance to the State of Georgia. The
only plausible reason given in favor of the amendment was, that if the
bill passed without it, it would give offence to, and excite jealousy
in, the State of Georgia. But how? Because Congress passes an act to
settle the interfering claims, and directs the appointment of
commissioners to give them a compensation for what we might take without
it? Or, because we say we will enter upon the territory, to which we
always laid claims, in order to preserve peace and order among the
inhabitants, and to secure it against the attack of the Indians or of a
foreign power? Gentlemen seem to take it for granted that Georgia has
possession of this territory; whereas those who oppose the amendment,
contend it is a vacant possession, and that we have a right to take
possession of it, to hold it, not until an army is raised to take it
from us, but until the legal question of right shall be decided. And it
could not be said that there was any thing offensive in this. If a man,
for instance, were to enter upon a piece of land, and say he would never
give it up until he was driven from it, it would certainly be an act of
violence; but if he enter upon it only to take care of it, until a legal
decision can be had as to his right, such an act was perfectly
justifiable; and this was intended in the present case.
Mr. KITTERA hoped, if the bill passed at all, it would be without the
amendment. This territory was never yet governed either by the United
States or Georgia, but had been ceded to the United States by Spain, in
our late treaty with that power, and we ought to retain possession of it
until the title to it was clear. In this view of the subject, he could
not see how the State of Georgia could take offence at our holding the
territory until the existing dispute was settled.
Mr. BALDWIN said it was to be regretted, as this was the last instance
in which this question of cession could be presented to Congress, that
the situation of the persons settled upon this territory was such as
should seem to constrain gentlemen to depart from the course of their
former proceedings on this subject. He was fully impressed with the
situation of that people; but he thought little delay would be
occasioned by the proposed application to the State of Georgia; nor
would that consent weaken, as had been suggested, the title of the
United States. Or, if there was any force in the objection, it might be
guarded against by adding a few words in the section which speaks of
preserving the claim of Georgia as it now stands.
Mr. B. said, gentlemen who had turned their attention to the map, would
find that the territory in question is situate at the south-west corner
of the United States; the southern boundary is latitude 31, and the
western boundary the Mississippi, which is also the boundary of the
United States. Its extent is about 280 miles north and south, and coming
this way, about 400 miles. That part upon which this bill is bottomed,
is little more than one-third part of the whole of that territory. The
United States now reckon latitude 32-1/2 as the boundary of Georgia; but
in the treaty, and till very lately, it was always reckoned to be 31,
which is also the boundary of the United States. This was, at any rate,
a new discovery--the official documents in support of which he had not
seen. It was now supposed that West Florida extends to latitude 32-1/2,
and not to 31, which is one degree and a half more than formerly
supposed. If this were so, he wondered it had never before been
discovered by England or Spain. Why was the boundary of the United
States always fixed at 31? He feared, that since it became our interest
to extend the boundary, we had suffered that interest to color our
judgment. The instructions drawn out for our Minister by a former
Secretary of State were, "you are to contend for latitude 31." The
ground upon which he had stated this, Mr. B. thought irresistible, and
it was thought we might risk a war upon it. Besides, this bill would not
cure the evil for which it was intended. There might be inhabitants
still further north; this bill provides only for such as are settled
within what had been called the Province of West Florida. Mr. B. said,
he had never seen the documents which authorized this extension. He had,
indeed, seen the remarks of Mr. Chalmers, who, he believed, was
Secretary to the Board of Trade and Plantations in London; but he
believed he had drawn what he had said from the same document which was
now reported, viz: the extract from the copy of the instructions said to
have been given to Governor Chester; but the order of King and Council
for extending it, the Attorney General says, in page 11th of his report,
is not to be found.
Gentlemen had said, why does not the State of Georgia manifest a
disposition to make some arrangements respecting the territory in
question. They had done so. After the Revolutionary war in 1783 or
1784, when there was an expectation that the forts would have been
evacuated, they laid out a county there, and all the titles were
declared good, and where there was no other title occupancy was declared
to be sufficient, and warrants were to be issued accordingly. When he
first came to attend his duty in Congress, the Minister from Spain
arrived about the same time, when he put in the claim of Spain to this
territory, which prevented any thing further from being done; and as
soon as it was found that the arrangements made by Georgia gave umbrage
to the Spanish Government, they were given up.
In the year 1788, the State of Georgia passed an act for making the
cession of this territory to the United States. This act Congress
referred to a committee, which reported that Government ought not to
accept of the cession on the terms proposed. He believed the same
disposition to make the cession which always had existed, now existed.
He believed the disposition of the government of Georgia was as
favorable to the interests of the United States as that of any other
State. He did not rise to speak their praises; but he could not sit to
hear them blamed without notice.
If the proposed government was proceeded with without the consent of
Georgia, it would be a dereliction of principle. He thought some sort of
regulation might be made among the people for their own government,
until Georgia was applied to. This was not a new case. There had been
great settlements in several parts of the country long before any
government was provided for them. Mr. B. said, he did not mean to
undervalue the claim of the United States; they had always a claim in
every case of cession, but he hoped, except there was an absolute
necessity for it, the usual course of proceeding would not be departed
from.
Mr. GORDON said, the gentleman from Georgia complained that a different
course was proposed now to be taken than had been adopted heretofore. In
answer to this, it was sufficient to say, that where the circumstances
of cases differed, different courses were necessary. With respect to the
merits of the bill, he thought it stood right at present. The situation
of the people in the district alluded to, was such as required immediate
attention. If gentlemen were not convinced of this, he saw no necessity
for going into the business before the subsisting dispute between
Georgia and the United States was settled. He believed, however, there
was no doubt of the fact; and surely the gentleman from Georgia would
not wish that these people should live under a military government for
any length of time. Being satisfied of this point, he wished the bill to
pass without the amendment, as that might defeat altogether the purpose
of the bill. The claim of Georgia he looked upon at least as doubtful;
and as he considered the United States as bound to protect all its
citizens, he thought they would not be justified in returning these
people for answer, "we cannot attend to your wants until we have settled
our dispute with Georgia." Georgia might refuse to negotiate the
subject, and by that means protract the business in a manner which would
be very inconvenient, and perhaps drive the people under another
government. Besides, if Georgia should refuse its consent to the
establishment of a government in that quarter, it would, nevertheless,
be proper to establish one. The United States, Mr. G. said, came into
possession of this territory by treaty. But suppose it was now in
possession of a foreign power, would Georgia attempt to drive them from
it? Certainly not. It would amount to the making of war on a foreign
power. Suppose Georgia had a title to this territory, had not the United
States the power of depriving Georgia of it? Suppose, in their treaty
with Spain, the United States had surrendered to Spain one-half of this
land, or the whole of it, Georgia would have been bound by such an act;
and having got this territory by treaty, they had certainly a right to
establish a provisional government over it, until the dispute, as to the
title, was settled.
The question of this amendment was put and negatived by 46 to 24.
Mr. THATCHER rose and said, he should make a motion, touching the rights
of man, by moving to strike out the excepting clause in the 3d section
of the bill. [It appears that in the ordinance establishing a government
in the North-western Territory, slavery is expressly forbidden, and this
section of the bill directs that a government similar in all respects to
that established in the North-western Territory shall be established in
the Mississippi Territory, except that slavery shall not be forbidden.]
Mr. HARPER did not believe his friend's motion would be a proper mode of
supporting the rights of man. In the North-western Territory the
regulation forbidding slavery was a very proper one, as the people
inhabiting that part of the country were from parts where slavery did
not prevail, and they had of course no slaves amongst them; but in the
Mississippi Territory it would be very improper to make such a
regulation, as that species of property already exists, and persons
emigrating there from the Southern States would carry with them property
of this kind. To agree to such a proposition would, therefore, be a
decree of banishment to all the persons settled there, and of exclusion
to all those intending to go there. He believed it could not, therefore,
be carried into effect, as it struck at the habits and customs of the
people.
Mr. VARNUM did not know that the gentleman from South Carolina wished to
promote the rights of man. His observations showed, at least, that he
did not wish to support the rights of all men; for where there was a
disposition to retain a part of our species in slavery, there could not
be a proper respect for the rights of mankind. It was true that this
kind of property is held in the Southern States, because they cannot,
consistent with the safety of the people of those States, liberate them
on account of their very great numbers. But they considered it as a
great burden to be obliged to hold them. He hoped, therefore, Congress
would have so much respect for the rights of humanity as not to legalize
the existence of slavery any farther than it at present exists. He
believed the gentleman from South Carolina was mistaken in saying that
such a regulation would oblige all the inhabitants settled in this
territory to remove. The provision need only extend to the forbidding of
slaves being taken there. What, said he, is the situation of the
North-western Territory at this time? Land there is worth more than in
some of the old settled States; and he believed this high price of land,
and prosperous condition of the country, was entirely owing to the
absence of slavery. And if the Southern States could get clear of their
slaves, the price of their land would immediately double. At any rate,
he hoped the United States would prevent an increase of this calamity;
for he looked upon the practice of holding blacks in slavery in this
country to be equally criminal with that of the Algerines carrying our
citizens into slavery.
Mr. RUTLEDGE wished the gentleman from Massachusetts would withdraw his
motion, not from any apprehension he had that it would obtain; but he
hoped that he would not indulge himself and others in uttering
philippics against a practice with which his and their philosophy is at
war. He submitted to the gentleman's candor whether it was proper, on
every occasion, to do this--to bring forward the Southern States in an
odious light, or to give his neighbor and colleague an opportunity of
bringing them forward, and comparing them with Algerines! He thought
propriety and decency towards other members required that such language
should be checked. He believed, if his friend from Massachusetts had
recollected that the most angry debate which had taken place during this
session was occasioned by a motion on this subject, he would not have
brought forward the present question. One gentleman says, you call these
men property; another, you hold these men in chains; a third, you
violate the rights of man! And are not these men property? Do not the
people in this territory hold them as such? Did they not hold them under
the Spanish Government? And must we thus address these people: "We have
made a treaty which puts you under the mild government of the United
States, but we must take from you your property; or rather, we must set
your blacks at liberty to cut your throats. The rights of man was the
watch-word of the day, and Congress have determined that you shall not
possess this property. They cannot as yet do slavery away
altogether--the day is not yet arrived; but they have determined it
shall not exist in the Mississippi Territory."
These, said Mr. R., are not mere speculative opinions. They lead to
more mischief than gentlemen are aware of; and he trusted if the
gentleman from Massachusetts could be convinced that the discussion of
such questions as the present did much mischief in certain parts of the
Union, he would not bring them forward. He hoped he would withdraw the
present motion.
Mr. GORDON thought that when the gentleman from Massachusetts
recollected that, by the establishment of this government, the United
States do not establish their exclusive right to this territory, he
would consent to withdraw his amendment, as that went to say that we had
the absolute right of jurisdiction, and were determined to exercise it;
and in making a difference between the ground on which property was held
there from that on which it was held in Georgia, they would militate
against the 5th section of the bill.
Mr. OTIS hoped his colleague would not withdraw his motion; and the
reason why he wished this was, that an opportunity might be given to
gentlemen who came from the same part of the Union with him to manifest
that it is not their disposition to interfere with the Southern States
as to the species of property in question. With respect to the existence
of slavery, the House had often heard gentlemen, who are owners of
slaves, declare that it is not their fortune, but their misfortune that
they possess them, but who still keep them, and claim the right of
managing them as they think proper. He thought it was not the business
of those who had nothing to do with that kind of property to interfere
with that right; and he really wished that the gentlemen who held slaves
might not be deprived of the means of keeping them in order.
If the amendment prevailed, it would declare that no slavery should
exist in the Natchez country. This would not only be a sentence of
banishment, but of war. An immediate insurrection would probably take
place, and the inhabitants would not be suffered to retire in peace, but
be massacred on the spot. By permitting slavery in this district of
country, the number of slaves would not be increased--as if emigrants
from South Carolina or Georgia were to remove into this country they
would take their slaves with them; and he could see nothing in this
which could affect the philanthropy of his friend. The North-western
Territory is inhabited by a description of persons who have not been
accustomed to hold slaves, and therefore the restriction is agreeable to
them; but the territory in question will be settled by people from the
Southern States, who cannot cultivate the ground without slaves. He
hoped, however, the motion would be persisted in, and negatived by a
large majority.
Mr. D. FOSTER hoped, if the motion was not withdrawn, that a long debate
might not be had upon it.
Mr. THATCHER said he should not withdraw his motion, and the more it was
opposed, believing his cause to be good, the more obstinate he should
be in its support.
Mr. GILES wished to suggest a single idea. The present motion was
brought forward from the avowed motive of furthering the rights of man.
He did not know whether the tendency of it was calculated to ameliorate
the condition of the class of men alluded to; he believed not. On the
contrary, it was his opinion, that if the slaves of the Southern States
were permitted to go into this Western country, by lessening the number
in those States, and spreading them over a large surface of country,
there would be a greater probability of ameliorating their condition,
which could never be done whilst they were crowded together as they now
are in the Southern States.
Mr. HARTLEY said, he had himself intended to have brought forward an
amendment similar to the present, but, on inquiry, he found so many
difficulties in the way, that he was obliged to abandon it. He found it
would interfere with, and be a serious attack upon, the property of that
country. He was sorry it was not in the power of Congress to gratify the
wishes of philanthropists in this respect, by doing away slavery
altogether; but this could not be done at present, and as he believed
the present amendment, if carried, would be attended with bad effects,
he should vote against it.
Mr. GALLATIN said, if he saw any of the great inconveniences which were
foretold as likely to arise from this amendment, he should certainly
vote against it. He should be extremely averse to the adoption of any
principle which should either directly or indirectly lead to the
production of any commotion or insurgency in any State where there is a
great number of slaves. He did not see how any such effect could be
produced by the present motion; for, notwithstanding what had fallen
from the gentleman from South Carolina, it did not appear to him how a
regulation with respect to another Territory can affect the peace,
tranquillity, or property of any other State. How the forbidding of
slavery in the Mississippi Territory could produce a worse effect than
the same regulation in the North-western Territory, or in Pennsylvania,
or in several other States. The amendment, therefore, could not be
opposed on that ground; it must be on some other. Ought it to be
rejected on the ground of jurisdiction? Certainly not. The United States
intend to exercise jurisdiction over that Territory, and was there any
more reason for excepting this jurisdiction than any other? If we
establish this Government we expect it to be permanent; and if we
believe it is not conducive to the happiness of any people, but the
contrary, to legalize slavery, when we are about to form a constitution
for a Territory, its establishment ought to be prevented. But, if this
amendment is rejected, we establish slavery for the country, not only
during its temporary government, but for all the time it is a State;
for, by the constant admission of slaves, the number will increase to a
certain degree, and when the Territory shall become a State, the
interest of the holders will be such as to procure a constitution which
shall admit of slavery, and it will be thereby made permanent. Having
determined slavery was bad policy for the North-western Territory, he
saw no reason for a contrary determination with respect to this
Territory.
There was, then, only one solitary objection to the amendment, and that
might easily be obviated. It was with respect to the situation of the
people already settled there who are possessed of slaves. It would be
extremely impolitic and unjust to declare by ordinance that the people
settled there, either under the British, Spanish, or Georgia
governments, should be deprived of this kind of property; and if this
was the effect of the amendment, he would vote against it. Such a
regulation would be attended with the worst of consequences; but other
words may be easily introduced to guarantee the property of the persons
already settled there.
By the laws of the different States, Mr. G. said, the importation of
slaves is forbidden; but if this amendment does not obtain, he knew not
how slaves could be prevented from being introduced by the way of New
Orleans, by persons who are not citizens of the United States. He hoped,
therefore, the amendment would be agreed to.
Mr. NICHOLAS believed it not only to be the interest of the Southern
States, but of the United States, that this motion should be rejected.
They were to legislate for the whole of the Union, and ought to consult
the happiness of the whole. It was not for them to attempt to make a
particular spot of country more happy than all the rest. If it was a
misfortune to the Southern States to be overwhelmed with this kind of
property, he asked if it would not be doing service not only to them but
to the whole Union, to open this Western country, and by that means
spread the blacks over a large space, so that in time it might be safe
to carry into effect the plan which certain philanthropists have so much
at heart, and to which he had no objection, if it could be effected,
viz: the emancipation of this class of men? And when this country shall
have become sufficiently populous to become a State, and the Legislature
wishes to discountenance slavery, the increase of slaves may be
prevented, and such means taken to get rid of slavery altogether,
perhaps in conjunction with other parts of the United States, who by
that time may be in such a situation as to admit of it, as shall appear
prudent and proper.
Mr. THATCHER was of an opinion directly opposite to the gentleman who
had just sat down. Indeed, they seldom did agree in sentiment; to-day
they differed very widely. He believed the true interest and happiness
of the United States would be promoted by agreeing to this amendment;
because its tendency was to prevent the increase of an evil which was
acknowledged by the very gentlemen themselves who are owners of slaves.
Indeed the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. NICHOLAS) had frequently
declared in that House, that slavery was an evil of great magnitude. In
this respect they agreed in opinion; for he considered the existence of
slavery in the United States as the greatest of evils, an evil in direct
hostility to the principles of our Government; and he believed the
Government had the right to take all due measures to diminish and
destroy the evil, although in doing it they might injure the property of
some individuals; for he never could be brought to believe that an
individual can have a right in any thing which goes to the destruction
of our Government, viz: that he can have a right in a wrong. A property
in slaves is founded in wrong, and never can be right. He believed
Government must of necessity put a stop to this evil, and the sooner
they entered upon the business the better.
Mr. T. said, he honestly confessed he did not like to hear much said in
that House about the rights of man; because of late there had been much
quackery as to these rights. But, because these rights had been abused,
it did not follow that man has no rights. Where legislators are freely
chosen by the people, and frequently renewed; where a law cannot be
passed without affecting the interests of the persons who pass it, these
rights cannot greatly be abused; but, when we take upon us to legislate
for men against their will, it is proper enough to say something about
the rights of man, and to remind others, who are frequently heard
speaking of these rights, that by nature these enslaved men are entitled
to rights; and on that account it was, when he made this motion, that he
said he would make a motion touching the rights of man.
The reasons offered against the amendment by the gentleman from
Virginia, were a little singular. He contended that certain States were
overflowing with slaves, and if not colonized by opening this wide tract
of country to them, they would not be able to keep or manage them. He
always thought that colonizing these people tended to increase the race
far beyond what it would be when penned closely together.
Mr. GILES explained, by saying, that he had said nothing about
decreasing the number of blacks, but of spreading them over a larger
surface of country.
Mr. THATCHER said, he understood the gentleman's argument perfectly;
though he did not seem to understand it himself. The gentleman wished to
take the blacks away from places where they are huddled up together, and
spread them over this territory; they wished to get rid of them, and to
plague others with them. But they had them, and if they determined to
keep them, he wished only they should be plagued with them.
We are, said Mr. T. about to establish a Government for a new country.
Ours originated from, and was founded on the rights of man, upon which
ground we mean to protect it, and could there be any propriety in
emanating a government from ours, in which slavery is not only
tolerated, but sanctioned by law? Certainly not.
It was used as an argument against this amendment that this Territory
would be peopled by emigrants from the Southern States, who cannot work
for themselves; and on that account they must have slaves to work for
them. If this be true, it makes the people of the Southern States only
fit to superintend slaves. The language of this is, that these people
cannot subsist, except they have slaves to work for them.
For the reason he had stated, he hoped the amendment would be agreed to;
but if gentlemen thought those who at present hold slaves in the
Territory should be protected in them, he should not be opposed to their
holding them for a limited period.
The question was put and negatived, there being only 12 votes in its
favor.