treaty, and on the same terms, and the people in every part have
the same rights; but, if the amendment be adopted, Missouri will
not have the same rights which Louisiana now enjoys. She has been
admitted into the Union as a full sister, but her twin-sister,
Missouri, under the proposed amendment, is to be admitted as a
sister of the half-blood, or rather as a stepdaughter, under an
unjust stepmother--for what? Because she, as well as Louisiana,
performed well her part during the late war, and because she has
never given the general government any trouble. The operation
of the amendment is unjust as it relates to the people who have
moved there from other States. They carried with them the property
which was common in the States they left, secured to them by the
Constitution and laws of the United States as well as by the treaty.
There they purchased public lands and settled with their slaves,
without a single objection to their owning and carrying them; but
now, unfortunately for them, after they have been to the trouble
and expense of building houses and clearing plantations in the new
country it has been discovered that they had no right to carry their
slaves with them and that they must now move and make room for those
who are considered a better people. The country was bought with the
money of all, slaveholders as well as those who are not; and every
one knew when he bought land and moved with his property he had a
perfect right to do so. And no one till last session ever said to
the contrary or moved the restriction about slaves. The object now
avowed is to pen up the slaves and their owners, and not permit
them to cross the Mississippi to better their condition, where
there is room enough for all and good range for man and beast. (And
man is as much improved by moving and range as the beast of the
field.) But what is still more unaccountable, a part of the land
granted to the soldiers for their services in the late war was
laid off in Missouri expressly for the soldiers who had enlisted
in the Southern States, and would prefer living where they might
have slaves. These too are now to leave the country of their choice
and the land obtained by fighting the battles of the nation. Is
this just in a government of law, supported only by opinion? for
it is not pretended that it is a government of force. In the most
alarming state of our affairs at home--and some of them have an
ugly appearance--public opinion alone has corrected and changed
that which seemed to threaten disorder and ill-will into order and
good-will, except once, when the military was called out in 1791.
Let this be compared to the case of individuals and it will not be
found to be more favorable to the amendment than the real case just
stated. A and B buy a tract of land large enough for both and for
their children, and settle it, build houses and open plantations.
When they have got it in good way to live comfortably, after ten
or fifteen years, A thinks there is not too much for him and his
children, and that they can, a long time hence, settle and cultivate
the whole land. He then for the first time tells B that he has some
property he does not like, and that he must get clear of it or move.
B states the bargain. A answers that it is true he understood it so
until of late, but that move he must or get clear of his property;
for that property should not be in his way. The kind or quality of
property cannot affect the question.
A wise legislature will always consider the character, condition
and feelings of those to be legislated for. In a government and
people like ours this is indispensable. The question now under
debate demands this consideration. To a part of the United States,
and that part which supports the amendment, it cannot be important
except as it is made so by the circumstances of the time. In all
questions like the present, in the United States, the strong may
yield without disgrace even in their own opinion; the weak cannot.
Hence the propriety of not attempting to impose this new condition
on the people of Missouri. Their numbers are few compared to those
of the whole United States. Let the United States then abandon this
new scheme, let their magnanimity and not their power be felt by
the people of Missouri. The attempt to govern too much has produced
every civil war that ever has been, and probably every one that ever
may be. All governments, no matter what their form, want more power
and more authority, and all the governed want less government. Great
Britain lost the United States by attempting to govern too much and
to introduce new principles of governing. The United States would
not submit to the attempt, and earnestly endeavored to persuade
Great Britain to abandon it, but in vain. The United States would
not yield, and the result is known to the world. The battle is not
always to the strong nor the race to the swift. What reason have
we to expect that we can persuade Missouri to yield to our opinion
that did not apply as strongly to Great Britain? They are as near
akin to us as we were to Great Britain. They are "flesh of our flesh
and bone of our bone." But as to kin, when they fall out they do
not make up sooner than other people. Great Britain attempted to
govern us on a new principle, and we are attempting to establish a
new principle for the people of Missouri on becoming a State. Great
Britain attempted to collect a threepenny tax on the tea consumed
in the then colonies, which were not represented in Parliament;
and we to regulate what shall be property when Missouri becomes a
State, when she has no vote in Congress. The great English principle
of no tax without representation was violated in one case, and the
great American principle, that people are able to govern themselves,
will be violated if the amendment be adopted. Every free nation has
had some principle in its government to which more importance was
attached than to any other. The English principle was not to be
taxed without the consent of the people given in Parliament; the
American principle is the right of the people to form their State
governments in their own way, provided they be not inconsistent with
the Constitution of the United States. If the power in Congress to
pass the restriction was expressly delegated, and so clear that no
one could doubt it, in the present circumstances of the country,
it would still not be wise or prudent to do so; especially against
the consent of those who live in the territory. Their consent would
be more important to the nation than a restriction which would not
make one slave less, unless indeed they might be starved in the old
States.
Let me not be understood as wishing or intending to create any alarm
as to the intentions of the people of Missouri. I know nothing of
them. But in examining the question, we ought not to forget our own
history nor the character of those who settle on our frontiers. Your
easy chimney-corner people, the timid and fearful, never move to
them. They stay where there is no danger from an Indian or any wild
beast. They have no desire to engage the panther or the bear. It is
the bravest of the brave and the boldest of the bold who venture
there. They go not to return.
The settling of Kentucky and Tennessee during the war of the
Revolution proves in the most satisfactory manner what they can do
and will undergo, and that they will not return. The few people who
first settled there had to contend, without aid from the States,
against all the Indians bordering on the United States except the
Chickasaw and Choctaw nations, and maintained their stations. The
northern tribes, unaided by the southern, attacked the United States
since the adoption of the Constitution and defeated two armies, and
it required a third to conquer them. The frontier people in the
Revolutionary war, as well as in the late, astonished everybody by
their great exploits. Vermont, though claimed in the Revolutionary
war by New Hampshire and New York, was not inferior to any of the
States in her exertions to support independence.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania will pardon me for stating that
that State had had some experience of its government managing a
few people who would not yield obedience to its authority, though
settled within its limits. They were obliged to compromise. I mean
the Wyoming settlers. Again, since this government was in operation,
a few people settled on the Indian lands: they were ordered to move
from them, but did not obey: the military was sent to burn their
cabins. The commanding officer told them his business, and very
humanely advised them to move what property they had out of them.
This they did, and their cabins were burnt. They waited till the
troops marched, and very soon after built new cabins on the same
places and to the same chimneys.
These facts are stated to show that a contest with a people who
believe themselves right and one with a government are very
different things. It would have been very gratifying to me to have
been informed by some one of the gentlemen who support the amendment
what is intended to be done if it be adopted, and the people of
Missouri will not yield, but go on and form a State government
(having the requisite number of inhabitants agreeably to the
ordinance), as Tennessee did, and then apply for admission into the
Union. Will she be admitted, as Tennessee was, on an equal footing
with the original States, or will the application be rejected as the
British government did the petitions of the old Congress?
If you do not admit her, and she will not return to the territorial
government, will you declare the people rebels, as Great Britain did
us, and then order them to be conquered for contending for the same
rights that every State in the Union now enjoys? Will you for this,
order the father to march against son and brother against brother?
God forbid! It would be a terrible sight to behold these near
relations plunging the bayonet into each other for no other reason
than because the people of Missouri wish to be on equal footing with
the people of Louisiana. When Territories they were equal. Those who
remember the Revolution will not desire to see another civil war in
our land. They know too well the wretched scenes it will produce. If
you should declare them rebels and conquer them, will that attach
them to the Union? No one can expect this. Then do not attempt to
do that for them which was never done for others, and that which no
State would consent for Congress to do for it. If the United States
are to make conquests, do not let the first be at home. Nothing is
to be got by American conquering American. Nor ought we to forget
that we are not legislating for ourselves, and that the American
character is not yielding when rights are concerned. But why depart
from the old way, which has kept us in quiet, peace and harmony,
every one living under his own vine and fig-tree and none to make
him afraid? Why leave the road of experience, which has satisfied
all and made all happy, to take this new way, of which we have no
experience? This way leads to universal emancipation, of which we
have no experience. The Eastern and Middle States furnish none.
For years before these States emancipated their slaves they had
but few, and of them a part were sold to the South. We have no
more experience or book-learning on this subject than the French
Convention had which turned the slaves of Santo Domingo loose. Nor
can we foresee the consequences which may result from this new
motion clearer than the Convention did in their decree.
A clause in the Declaration of Independence has been read declaring
that "all men are created equal." Follow that sentiment, and does
it not lead to universal emancipation? If it will justify putting
an end to slavery in Missouri, will it not justify it in the
old States? Suppose the plan followed and all the slaves turned
loose, and the Union to continue, is it certain that the present
Constitution would last long? The rich would in such circumstances
want titles and hereditary distinctions, the negro food and raiment,
and they would be as much or more degraded than in their present
condition. The rich might hire these wretched people, and with them
attempt to change the government by trampling on the rights of those
who have only property enough to live comfortably. Opinions have
greatly changed in some of the States in a few years. The time has
been when those now called slaveholding States were thought to be
the firm and steadfast friends of the people and of liberty. Then
they were opposing an administration and a majority in Congress
supported by a sedition law; then there was not a word heard, at
least from one side, about those who actually did most toward
changing the administration and the majority in Congress, and they
were from slaveholding States. And now it would be curious to know
how many members of Congress actually hold seats in consequence of
their exertions at the time alluded to. Past services are always
forgotten when new principles are to be introduced.
It is a fact that the people who move from the non-slaveholding to
slaveholding States, when they became slaveholders, by purchase or
marriage, expect more labor from them than those do who are brought
up among them.
To the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Burrill) I tender my hearty
thanks for his liberal and true statement of the treatment of
slaves in the Southern States. His observations leave but little
for me to add, which is this, that the slaves gained as much by
independence as the free. The old ones are better taken care of than
any poor in the world, and treated with decent respect by their
white acquaintances. I sincerely wish that he and the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Roberts) would go home with me, or some
other Southern member, and witness the meeting between slaves and
owner and see the glad faces and hearty shaking of hands. This
is well described in General Moultrie's _Memoirs of the American
Revolution_, in which he gives the account of his reception by
his slaves the first time he went home after he was exchanged. He
was made prisoner at the surrender of Charleston. Could he (Mr.
Macon) have procured the book in the city he intended to have
read it to show the attachment of the slave to his owner. A fact
shall be stated. An excellent friend of mine--he too, like the
other characters which have been mentioned in the debate, was a
Virginian--had business in England which made it necessary that he
should go to that country himself or send a trusty agent. He could
not go conveniently, so he sent one of his slaves, who remained
there near a year. Upon his return he was asked by his owner how
he liked the country, and if he would have liked to stay there? He
replied that to oblige him he would have stayed; the country was
the finest he ever saw; the land was worked as nice as a square in
a garden; they had the finest horses and carriages, and houses, and
everything; but that the white servants abused his country. What
did they say? They said we owed them (the English) a heap of money,
and would not pay; to which he added, their chief food was mutton;
he saw very little bacon there. The owner can make more free in
conversation with his slave and be more easy in his company than
the rich man, where there is no slave, with the white hireling who
drives his carriage. He has no expectation that the slave will, for
the free and easy conversation, expect to call him fellow-citizen or
act improperly.
Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia have been mentioned by
Senators in this debate, and it has frequently been said that the
two first had emancipated their slaves; from which an inference
seems to be drawn that the other might have done so: emancipation to
these gentlemen seems to be quite an easy task. It is so when there
are but very few slaves; and would be more easy did not the color
everywhere place the blacks in a degraded state. Where they enjoy
the most freedom they are there degraded. The respectable whites do
not permit them to associate with them or to be of their company
when they have parties. But if it be so easy a task, how happens it
that Virginia, which before the Revolution endeavored to put an end
to the African slave-trade, has not attempted to emancipate? It will
not be pretended that the great men of other States were superior or
greater lovers of liberty than her Randolph, the first President of
the first Congress, her Washington, her Henry, her Jefferson, or her
Nelson. None of these ever made the attempt, and their voices ought
to convince every one that it is not an easy task in that State. And
is it not wonderful, that if the Declaration of Independence gave
authority to emancipate, the patriots who made it never proposed
any plan to carry it into execution? This motion, whatever is
pretended by its friends, must lead to it. And is it not equally
wonderful that if the Constitution gives the authority, this is the
first attempt ever made, under either, by the Federal Government
to exercise it? For if under either the power is given, it will
apply as well to States as to Territories. If either intended to
give it, is it not still more wonderful that it is not given in
direct terms? The gentleman would not then be put to the trouble of
searching the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution and the
laws for a sentence or a word to form a few doubts. If the words of
the Declaration of Independence be taken as part of the Constitution
(and that they are no part of it is as true as that they are no
part of any other book), what will be the condition of the Southern
country when this shall be carried into execution? Take the most
favorable view which can be supposed, that no convulsion ensue,
that nothing like massacre or war of extermination take place as in
Santo Domingo, but that whites and blacks do not marry and produce
mulatto States, will not the whites be compelled to move and leave
their lands and houses and abandon the country to the blacks? And
are you willing to have black members of Congress? But if the scenes
of Santo Domingo should be re-acted, would not the tomahawk and the
scalping-knife be mercy?
[Illustration: ARCHIBALD D. MURPHY.]
ARCHIBALD D. MURPHY.
BY WM. A. GRAHAM.
Archibald D. Murphy was, in the generation immediately preceding
our own, one of the most eminent characters in North Carolina. In
many of the attributes of a statesman and philosopher he excelled
all his contemporaries in the State, and, in every department
of exertion to which his mind was applied, he had few equals or
seconds. As an advocate at the bar, a judge on the bench, a reporter
of the decisions of the highest court of justice, a legislator of
comprehensive intelligence, enterprise and patriotism, a literary
man of classic taste, attainments and style in composition, his
fame is a source of just pride to his friends and his country. But
for the paucity of our information, and the pressure of time and
circumstances in the preparation of this sketch, it would be a labor
of love to review his earlier years and trace the development and
progress of his career in youth. Neither materials nor leisure for
this topic, however, are now at our command.
His father, Colonel Archibald Murphy, was a conspicuous citizen of
the county of Caswell, and bore a part in the military service in
the war of the Revolution, for which the citizens of that county,
and especially of his vicinity, were greatly distinguished. The
residence of his father was about two miles from Red House, in the
congregation of Rev. Mr. McAden, a Presbyterian minister, whose son,
the late Dr. John McAden, married the daughter of Colonel Murphy,
by whom he left descendants who still survive. At this place, some
seven miles from Milton, Archibald DeBow Murphy, the subject of
our memoir, was born, we believe, in the year 1777. Of the other
children of his parents there were two brothers and four sisters.
His education, preparatory to admission into the infant University
of the State at Chapel Hill, was received in the school of the Rev.
Dr. David Caldwell, of Guilford county. Of the opportunities for
education during his youth, Mr. Murphy himself informs us that
before the University went into operation, in 1795, there were not
more than three schools in the State in which the rudiments of a
classical education could be acquired, and that the most prominent
and useful of these was that of Dr. Caldwell; that the deficiency
of books for literary instruction, except in the libraries of a few
lawyers in the commercial towns, was still greater, and by way of
illustration he relates that after completing his course of studies
under Dr. Caldwell he spent nearly two years without finding any
books to read except some old works on theological subjects, and
that then chance threw in his way Voltaire's history of Charles XII.
of Sweden, an odd volume of _Roderick Random_ and an abridgment
of _Don Quixote_. These constituted his whole stock of literary
furniture when he entered college in 1796. When we remember that
he afterwards became capable of writing like Goldsmith, and with
an ease and rapidity that Goldsmith could not have equaled, we
can but recall these reminiscences of earlier times and encourage
the diligent student by his example. With a mind delighted by a
consciousness of advancement in knowledge, and spirit of emulation,
he profited greatly by three years of study in the University, and
graduated with the highest distinction in 1799.
Such was the reputation acquired by him in this period that he
was at once appointed Professor of Ancient Languages in his _alma
mater_--a situation in which he continued the three succeeding
years, and in which he matured that scholarship and taste for
liberal studies which so much distinguished him among his
professional brethren and the educated gentlemen of the State.
His admission to the bar took place in 1802, after a course of
professional reading so limited that the first judge to whom he
applied (the signatures of two being then necessary for a license)
refused to examine him; and (as he was accustomed to amuse his
friends by relating) his success, only a few months later, in
gaining admission to the practice in all the courts at once, was
owing to the good fortune of bearing a letter from a friend, at the
succeeding term of the Court of Conference, to one of the judges,
a gentleman of proverbial benevolence and kindness, who conducted
the examination, or interview, in his own chamber, and procured the
signatures of his brethren without so much having been requested
or expected--so little strictness was observed towards the few
applicants then entering the profession.
But if he was allowed admission _ex gratia_, and without the
requisite amount of learning, he was not long in supplying the
deficiency. The powers of mind and eagerness in quest of knowledge
which had been exhibited in his scholastic studies enabled him
to make rapid progress in the law. His professional studies were
directed by William Duffy, Esq., an eminent lawyer, then residing
in Hillsborough, to whom he was ever afterwards affectionately
attached, and to whose memory he paid a grateful tribute among
his sketches of public and professional men of North Carolina, in
an oration before the Literary Societies of the University in his
latter years. Mr. Murphy advanced rapidly to the first rank of the
advocates of his day, and notwithstanding his turning aside, to the
indulgence of his tastes for general literature, his enlightened
labors and bright career in legislation, his promotion and service
on the bench for two years, his decayed health and irregular
attendance on the courts in his latter days, he maintained his
position in the public estimation, even to the end of his life. When
it is remembered that among his competitors at one time or another,
for more than a quarter of a century, were Archibald Henderson,
Cameron, Norwood, Nash, Seawell, Yancey, Ruffin, Badger, Hawks,
Mangum, and Morehead, it must be admitted that he was at a bar where
the remark of Pinkney that "it was not a place where a false and
fraudulent reputation for talents can be maintained," was fully
justified. His practice for many years was not exceeded by that of
any gentleman in the State, and his success corresponded with its
extent. Both his examination of witnesses and argument of causes
before juries on the circuit could not be excelled in skillfulness.
He had a Quaker-like plainness of aspect, a scrupulous cleanness
and neatness in an equally plain attire, an habitual politeness and
a subdued simplicity of manner which at once won his way to the
hearts of juries, while no Greek dialectician had a more ready and
refined ingenuity or was more fertile in every resource of forensic
gladiatorship. His manner of speaking was never declamatory or in
any sense boisterous, but in the style of earnest and emphatic
conversation, so simple and apparently undesigning that he seemed
to the jury to be but interpreting their thoughts rather than
enunciating his own, yet with a correctness and often elegance of
diction which no severity of criticism could improve. A pattern of
politeness in all his intercourse, public and private, he could
torture an unwilling or corrupt witness into a full exposure of his
falsehood, and often had him impaled before he was aware of his
design; no advocate had at his command more effective raillery, wit,
and ridicule to mingle with his arguments.