which passed it, there were two of the "thirty-nine." They were
Abraham Baldwin and Jonathan Dayton.[18] As stated in the case of
Mississippi, it is probable they both voted for it. They would not
have allowed it to pass without recording their opposition to it,
if, in their understanding, it violated either the line properly
dividing local from federal authority, or any provision of the
Constitution.
In 1819-20, came and passed the Missouri question. Many votes were
taken, by yeas and nays, in both branches of Congress, upon the
various phases of the general question. Two of the
"thirty-nine"--Rufus King and Charles Pinckney--were members of
that Congress.[19] Mr. King steadily voted for slavery prohibition
and against all compromises, while Mr. Pinckney as steadily voted
against slavery prohibition and against all compromises. By this,
Mr. King showed that, in his understanding, no line dividing local
from federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, was
violated by Congress prohibiting slavery in federal territory; while
Mr. Pinckney, by his votes, showed that, in his understanding, there
was some sufficient reason for opposing such prohibition in that
case.[20]
The cases I have mentioned are the only acts of the "thirty-nine,"
or of any of them, upon the direct issue, which I have been able to
discover.
To enumerate the persons who thus acted, as being four in 1784, two
in 1787, seventeen in 1789, three in 1798, two in 1804, and two in
1819-20--there would be thirty of them. But this would be counting
John Langdon, Roger Sherman, William Few, Rufus King, and George
Read each twice, and Abraham Baldwin three times. The true number of
those of the "thirty-nine" whom I have shown to have acted upon the
question, which, by the text, they understood better than we, is
twenty-three, leaving sixteen not shown to have acted upon it in
anyway.[21]
Here, then, we have twenty-three out of our thirty-nine fathers "who
framed the Government under which we live," who have, upon their
official responsibility and their corporal oaths, acted upon the
very question which the text affirms they "understood just as well,
and even better than we do now"; and twenty-one of them--a clear
majority of the whole "thirty-nine"--so acting upon it as to make
them guilty of gross political impropriety and wilful perjury, if,
in their understanding, any proper division between local and
federal authority, or anything in the Constitution they had made
themselves, and sworn to support, forbade the Federal Government to
control as to slavery in the federal territories. Thus the
twenty-one acted; and, as actions speak louder than words, so
actions under such responsibility speak still louder.
Two of the twenty-three voted against Congressional prohibition of
slavery in the federal territories, in the instances in which they
acted upon the question. But for what reasons they so voted is not
known. They may have done so because they thought a proper division
of local from federal authority, or some provision or principle of
the Constitution, stood in the way; or they may, without any such
question, have voted against the prohibition on what appeared to
them to be sufficient grounds of expediency. No one who has sworn to
support the Constitution can conscientiously vote for what he
understands to be an unconstitutional measure, however expedient he
may think it; but one may and ought to vote against a measure which
he deems constitutional, if, at the same time, he deems it
inexpedient. It, therefore, would be unsafe to set down even the two
who voted against the prohibition, as having done so because, in
their understanding, any proper division of local from federal
authority, or anything in the Constitution, forbade the Federal
Government to control as to slavery in federal territory.[22]
The remaining sixteen of the "thirty-nine," so far as I have
discovered, have left no record of their understanding upon the
direct question of federal control of slavery in the federal
territories. But there is much reason to believe that their
understanding upon that question would not have appeared different
from that of their twenty-three compeers, had it been manifested at
all.[23]
For the purpose of adhering rigidly to the text, I have purposely
omitted whatever understanding may have been manifested by any
person, however distinguished, other than the thirty-nine fathers
who framed the original Constitution; and, for the same reason, I
have also omitted whatever understanding may have been manifested by
any of the "thirty-nine" even, on any other phase of the general
question of slavery. If we should look into their acts and
declarations on those other phases, as the foreign slave trade, and
the morality and policy of slavery generally, it would appear to us
that on the direct question of federal control of slavery in federal
territories, the sixteen, if they had acted at all, would probably
have acted just as the twenty-three did. Among that sixteen were
several of the most noted anti-slavery men of those times--as Dr.
Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and Gouverneur Morris--while there was
not one now known to have been otherwise, unless it may be John
Rutledge, of South Carolina.[24]
The sum of the whole is, that of our thirty-nine fathers who framed
the original Constitution, twenty-one--a clear majority of the
whole--certainly understood that no proper division of local from
federal authority, nor any part of the Constitution, forbade the
Federal Government to control slavery in the federal territories;
while all the rest probably had the same understanding. Such,
unquestionably, was the understanding of our fathers who framed the
original Constitution; and the text affirms that they understood the
question "better than we."
But, so far, I have been considering the understanding of the
question manifested by the framers of the original Constitution. In
and by the original instrument, a mode was provided for amending it;
and, as I have already stated, the present frame of "the Government
under which we live" consists of that original, and twelve
amendatory articles framed and adopted since. Those who now insist
that federal control of slavery in federal territories violates the
Constitution, point us to the provisions which they suppose it thus
violates; and, as I understand, they all fix upon provisions in
these amendatory articles and not in the original instrument. The
Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott case, plant themselves upon the
fifth amendment, which provides that no person shall be deprived of
"life, liberty or property without due process of law"; while
Senator Douglas and his peculiar adherents plant themselves upon the
tenth amendment, providing that "the powers not delegated to the
United States by the Constitution" "are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people."[25]
Now, it so happens that these amendments were framed by the first
Congress which sat under the Constitution--the identical Congress
which passed the act already mentioned, enforcing the prohibition of
slavery in the Northwestern Territory. Not only was it the same
Congress, but they were the identical same individual men who, at
the same session, and at the same time within the session had under
consideration, and in progress toward maturity, these Constitutional
amendments, and this act prohibiting slavery in all the territory
the nation then owned. The Constitutional amendments were introduced
before, and passed after, the act enforcing the Ordinance of '87; so
that, during the whole pendency of the act to enforce the Ordinance,
the Constitutional amendments were also pending.[26]
The seventy-six members of that Congress, including sixteen of the
framers of the original Constitution, as before stated, were
pre-eminently our fathers who framed that part of "the Government
under which we live," which is now claimed as forbidding the Federal
Government to control slavery in the federal territories.
Is it not a little presumptuous in any one at this day to affirm
that the two things which that Congress deliberately framed, and
carried to maturity at the same time, are absolutely inconsistent
with each other? And does not such affirmation become impudently
absurd when coupled with the other affirmation from the same mouth,
that those who did the two things, alleged to be inconsistent,
understood whether they really were inconsistent better than
we--better than he who affirms that they are inconsistent?
It is surely safe to assume that the thirty-nine framers of the
original Constitution, and the seventy-six members of the Congress
which framed the amendments thereto, taken together, do certainly
include those who may be fairly called "our fathers who framed the
Government under which we live."[27] And so assuming, I defy any man
to show that any one of them ever, in his whole life, declared that,
in his understanding, any proper division of local from federal
authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal
Government to control as to slavery in the federal territories. I go
a step further. I defy any one to show that any living man in the
whole world ever did, prior to the beginning of the present
century, (and I might almost say prior to the beginning of the last
half of the present century,) declare that, in his understanding,
any proper division of local from federal authority, or any part of
the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as to
slavery in the federal territories. To those who now so declare, I
give, not only "our fathers who framed the Government under which we
live," but with them all other living men within the century in
which it was framed, among whom to search, and they shall not be
able to find the evidence of a single man agreeing with them.
Now, and here, let me guard a little against being misunderstood. I
do not mean to say we are bound to follow implicitly in whatever our
fathers did. To do so, would be to discard all the lights of current
experience--to reject all progress--all improvement. What I do say
is, that if we would supplant the opinions and policy of our fathers
in any case, we should do so upon evidence so conclusive, and
argument so clear, that even their great authority, fairly
considered and weighed, cannot stand; and most surely not in a case
whereof we ourselves declare they understood the question better
than we.
If any man at this day sincerely believes that a proper division of
local from federal authority, or any part of the Constitution,
forbids the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the
federal territories, he is right to say so, and to enforce his
position by all truthful evidence and fair argument which he can.
But he has no right to mislead others, who have less access to
history, and less leisure to study it, into the false belief that
"our fathers, who framed the Government under which we live," were
of the same opinion--thus substituting falsehood and deception for
truthful evidence and fair argument. If any man at this day
sincerely believes "our fathers who framed the Government under
which we live," used and applied principles, in other cases, which
ought to have led them to understand that a proper division of local
from federal authority or some part of the Constitution, forbids the
Federal Government to control as to slavery in the federal
territories, he is right to say so. But he should, at the same time,
brave the responsibility of declaring that, in his opinion, he
understands their principles better than they did themselves; and
especially should he not shirk that responsibility by asserting that
they "understood the question just as well, and even better, than we
do now."
But enough! _Let all who believe that "our fathers, who framed the
Government under which we live, understood this question just as
well, and even better, than we do now," speak as they spoke, and act
as they acted upon it. This is all Republicans ask--all Republicans
desire--in relation to slavery. As those fathers marked it, so let
it be again marked, as an evil not to be extended, but to be
tolerated and protected only because of and so far as its actual
presence among us makes that toleration and protection a necessity.
Let all the guaranties those fathers gave it, be, not grudgingly,
but fully and fairly maintained_. For this Republicans contend, and
with this, so far as I know or believe, they will be content.
And now, if they would listen--as I suppose they will not--I would
address a few words to the Southern people.
I would say to them: You consider yourselves a reasonable and a just
people; and I consider that in the general qualities of reason and
justice you are not inferior to any other people. Still, when you
speak of us Republicans, you do so only to denounce us as reptiles,
or, at the best, as no better than outlaws. You will grant a hearing
to pirates or murderers, but nothing like it to "Black Republicans."
In all your contentions with one another each of you deems an
unconditional condemnation of "Black Republicanism" as the first
thing to be attended to. Indeed, such condemnation of us seems to be
an indispensable prerequisite--licence, so to speak--among you to be
admitted or permitted to speak at all. Now, can you, or not, be
prevailed upon to pause and to consider whether this is quite just
to us, or even to yourselves? Bring forward your charges and
specifications, and then be patient long enough to hear us deny or
justify.
You say we are sectional. We deny it. That makes an issue; and the
burden of proof is upon you. You produce your proof; and what is
it? Why, that our party has no existence in your section--gets no
votes in your section. The fact is substantially true; but does it
prove the issue? If it does, then in case we should, without change
of principle, begin to get votes in your section, we should thereby
cease to be sectional. You cannot escape this conclusion; and yet,
are you willing to abide by it? If you are, you will probably soon
find that we have ceased to be sectional, for we shall get votes in
your section this very year. You will then begin to discover, as the
truth plainly is, that your proof does not touch the issue. The fact
that we get no votes in your section, is a fact of your making, and
not of ours. And if there be fault in that fact, that fault is
primarily yours, and remains so until you show that we repel you by
some wrong principle or practice. If we do repel you by any wrong
principle or practice, the fault is ours; but this brings you to
where you ought to have started--to a discussion of the right or
wrong of our principle. If our principle, put in practice, would
wrong your section for the benefit of ours, or for any other object,
then our principle, and we with it, are sectional, and are justly
opposed and denounced as such. Meet us, then, on the question of
whether our principle, put in practice, would wrong your section;
and so meet us as if it were possible that something may be said on
our side. Do you accept the challenge? No! Then you really believe
that the principle which "our fathers who framed the Government
under which we live" thought so clearly right as to adopt it, and
indorse it again and again, upon their official oaths, is in fact so
clearly wrong as to demand your condemnation without a moment's
consideration.
Some of you delight to flaunt in our faces the warning against
sectional parties given by Washington in his Farewell Address. Less
than eight years before Washington gave that warning, he had, as
President of the United States, approved and signed an act of
Congress, enforcing the prohibition of slavery in the Northwestern
Territory, which act embodied the policy of the Government upon that
subject up to and at the very moment he penned that warning; and
about one year after he penned it, he wrote Lafayette that he
considered that prohibition a wise measure, expressing in the same
connection his hope that we should at some time have a confederacy
of free States.[28]
Bearing this in mind, and seeing that sectionalism has since arisen
upon this same subject, is that warning a weapon in your hands
against us, or in our hands against you? Could Washington himself
speak, would he cast the blame of that sectionalism upon us, who
sustain his policy, or upon you who repudiate it? We respect that
warning of Washington, and we commend it to you, together with his
example pointing to the right application of it.
But you say you are conservative--eminently conservative--while we
are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is
conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the
new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy
on the point in controversy which was adopted by "our fathers who
framed the Government under which we live"; while you with one
accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist
upon substituting something new. True, you disagree among yourselves
as to what that substitute shall be. You are divided on new
propositions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and
denouncing the old policy of the fathers. Some of you are for
reviving the foreign slave trade; some for a Congressional
Slave-Code for the Territories; some for Congress forbidding the
Territories to prohibit Slavery within their limits; some for
maintaining Slavery in the Territories through the judiciary; some
for the "gur-reat pur-rinciple" that "if one man would enslave
another, no third man should object," fantastically called "Popular
Sovereignty"; but never a man among you in favor of federal
prohibition of slavery in federal territories, according to the
practice of "our fathers who framed the Government under which we
live." Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an
advocate in the century within which our Government originated.
Consider, then, whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves,
and your charge of destructiveness against us, are based on the most
clear and stable foundations.
Again, you say we have made the slavery question more prominent than
it formerly was. We deny it. We admit that it is more prominent, but
we deny that we made it so. It was not we, but you, who discarded
the old policy of the fathers. We resisted, and still resist, your
innovation; and thence comes the greater prominence of the question.
Would you have that question reduced to its former proportions? Go
back to that old policy. What has been will be again, under the same
conditions. If you would have the peace of the old times, readopt
the precepts and policy of the old times.
You charge that we stir up insurrections among your slaves. We deny
it; and what is your proof? Harper's Ferry! John Brown!! John Brown
was no Republican; and you have failed to implicate a single
Republican in his Harper's Ferry enterprise. If any member of our
party is guilty in that matter, you know it or you do not know it.
If you do know it, you are inexcusable for not designating the man
and proving the fact. If you do not know it, you are inexcusable for
asserting it, and especially for persisting in the assertion after
you have tried and failed to make the proof. You need not be told
that persisting in a charge which one does not know to be true, is
simply malicious slander.[29]
Some of you admit that no Republican designedly aided or encouraged
the Harper's Ferry affair; but still insist that our doctrines and
declarations necessarily lead to such results. We do not believe it.
We know we hold to no doctrine, and make no declaration, which was
not held to and made by "our fathers who framed the Government under
which we live." You never dealt fairly by us in relation to this
affair. When it occurred, some important State elections were near
at hand, and you were in evident glee with the belief that, by
charging the blame upon us, you could get an advantage of us in
those elections. The elections came, and your expectations were not
quite fulfilled. Every Republican man knew that, as to himself at
least, your charge was a slander, and he was not much inclined by it
to cast his vote in your favor. Republican doctrines and
declarations are accompanied with a continual protest against any
interference whatever with your slaves, or with you about your
slaves. Surely, this does not encourage them to revolt. True, we do,
in common with "our fathers, who framed the Government under which
we live," declare our belief that slavery is wrong; but the slaves
do not hear us declare even this. For anything we say or do, the
slaves would scarcely know there is a Republican party. I believe
they would not, in fact, generally know it but for your
misrepresentations of us, in their hearing. In your political
contests among yourselves, each faction charges the other with
sympathy with Black Republicanism; and then, to give point to the
charge, defines Black Republicanism to simply be insurrection, blood
and thunder among the slaves.
Slave insurrections are no more common now than they were before the
Republican party was organized. What induced the Southampton
insurrection, twenty-eight years ago, in which, at least, three
times as many lives were lost as at Harper's Ferry?[30] You can
scarcely stretch your very elastic fancy to the conclusion that
Southampton was "got up by Black Republicanism." In the present
state of things in the United States, I do not think a general, or
even a very extensive slave insurrection, is possible. The
indispensable concert of action cannot be attained. The slaves have
no means of rapid communication; nor can incendiary freemen, black
or white, supply it. The explosive materials are everywhere in
parcels; but there neither are, nor can be supplied, the
indispensable connecting trains.
Much is said by Southern people about the affection of slaves for
their masters and mistresses; and a part of it, at least, is true. A
plot for an uprising could scarcely be devised and communicated to
twenty individuals before some one of them, to save the life of a
favorite master or mistress, would divulge it. This is the rule; and
the slave revolution in Hayti was not an exception to it, but a case
occurring under peculiar circumstances,[31] The gunpowder plot of
British history, though not connected with slaves, was more in
point. In that case, only about twenty were admitted to the secret;
and yet one of them, in his anxiety to save a friend, betrayed the
plot to that friend, and, by consequence, averted the calamity.
Occasional poisonings from the kitchen, and open or stealthy
assassinations in the field, and local revolts extending to a score
or so, will continue to occur as the natural results of slavery; but
no general insurrection of slaves, as I think, can happen in this
country for a long time. Whoever much fears, or much hopes for such
an event, will be alike disappointed.
In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years ago, "It is
still in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and
deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil
will wear off insensibly; and their places be, _pari passu_, filled
up by free white laborers. If, on the contrary, it is left to force
itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up."[32]
Mr. Jefferson did not mean to say, nor do I, that the power of
emancipation is in the Federal Government. He spoke of Virginia;
and, as to the power of emancipation, I speak of the slaveholding
States only. The Federal Government, however, as we insist, has the
power of restraining the extension of the institution--the power to
insure that a slave insurrection shall never occur on any American
soil which is now free from slavery.