petition of the _free_ people of color in St. Domingo, many of whom were
intelligent and wealthy, passed a decree intended to be in their favor,
but so ambiguous as to be construed in favor of both the whites and the
blacks. The differences growing out of the decree created two
parties--the _whites_ and the people of color; and some blood was shed.
In 1791, the blacks again petitioned, and a decree was passed declaring
the colored people citizens, who were born of free parents on both
sides. This produced great excitement among the whites, and the two
parties armed against each other, and horrible massacres and
conflagrations followed. Then the Assembly rescinded this last decree,
and like results followed, the blacks being the exasperated parties and
the aggressors. Then the decree giving citizenship to the blacks was
restored, and commissioners were sent out to keep the peace. The
commissioners, unable to sustain themselves, between the two parties,
with the troops they had, issued a proclamation that all blacks who were
willing to range themselves under the banner of the Republic should be
free. As a result a very large proportion of the blacks became in fact
free. In 1794, the Conventional Assembly _abolished slavery_ throughout
the French Colonies. Some years afterward, the French Government sought,
with an army of 60,000 men, to reinstate slavery, but were unsuccessful,
and then the white planters were driven from the Island.]
[Footnote 32:--_Vide_ Jefferson's Autobiography, commenced January 6th,
1821. JEFFERSON'S _Works_, vol. 1, p. 49.]
[Footnote 33:--"I am not ashamed or afraid publicly to avow that the
election of William H. Seward or Salmon P. Chase, or any such
representative of the Republican party, upon a sectional platform, ought
to be resisted to the disruption of every tie that binds this
Confederacy together. (Applause on the Democratic side of the House.)"
_Mr. Curry, of Alabama, in the House of Representatives_.
"Just so sure as the Republican party succeed in electing a sectional
man, upon their sectional, anti-slavery platform, breathing destruction
and death to the rights of my people, just so sure, in my judgment, the
time will have come when the South must and will take an unmistakable
and decided action, and then he who dallies is a dastard, and he who
doubts is damned! I need not tell what I, a Southern man, will do. I
think I may safely speak for the masses of the people of Georgia--that
when that event happens, they, in my judgment, will consider it an overt
act, a declaration of war, and meet immediately in convention, to take
into consideration the mode and measure of redress. That is my position;
and if that be treason to the Government, make the most of it."--_Mr.
Gartell, of Georgia, in the House of Representatives_.
"I said to my constituents, and to the people of the capital of my
State, on my way here, if such an event did occur," [_i.e._, the
election of a Republican President, upon a Republican platform], "while
it would be their duty to determine the course which the State would
pursue, it would be my privilege to counsel with them as to what I
believed to be the proper course; and I said to them, what I say now,
and what I will always say in such an event, that my counsel would be to
take independence out of the Union in preference to the loss of
constitutional rights, and consequent degradation and dishonor, in it.
That is my position, and it is the position which I know the Democratic
party of the State of Mississippi will maintain."--_Gov. McRae, of
Mississippi._
"It is useless to attempt to conceal the fact that, in the present
temper of the Southern people, it" [_i.e._, the election of a Republican
President] "cannot be, and will not be, submitted to. The 'irrepressible
conflict' doctrine, announced and advocated by the ablest and most
distinguished leader of the Republican party, is an open declaration of
war against the institution of slavery, wherever it exists; and I would
be disloyal to Virginia and the South, if I did not declare that the
election of such a man, entertaining such sentiment, and advocating such
doctrines, _ought to be resisted by the slaveholding States_. The idea
of permitting such a man to have the control and direction of the army
and navy of the United States, and the appointment of high judicial and
executive officers, POSTMASTERS INCLUDED, _cannot_ be entertained by the
South for a moment."--_Gov. Letcher, of Virginia_.
"Slavery _must_ be maintained--in the Union, if possible; out of it, if
necessary: peaceably if we may; forcibly if we must."--_Senator Iverson,
of Georgia_.
"Lincoln and Hamlin, the Black Republican nominees, will be elected in
November next, and the South will then decide the great question whether
they will submit to the domination of Black Republican rule--the
fundamental principle of their organization being an open, undisguised,
and declared war upon our social institutions. I believe that the honor
and safety of the South, in that contingency, will require the prompt
secession of the slaveholding States from the Union; and failing then to
obtain from the free States additional and higher guaranties for the
protection of our rights and property, that the seceding States should
proceed to establish a new government. But while I think such would be
the imperative duty of the South, I should emphatically reprobate and
repudiate any scheme having for its object the separate secession of
South Carolina. If Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi alone--giving us a
portion of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts--would unite with this State in
a common secession upon the election of a Black Republican, I would give
my consent to the policy."--_Letter of Hon. James L. Orr, of S.C., to
John Martin and others, July_ 23, 1860.]
[Footnote 34:--The Hon. John A. Andrew, of the Boston Bar, made the
following analysis of the Dred Scott case in the Massachusetts
Legislature. Hon. Caleb Cushing was then a member of that body, but did
not question its correctness.
"On the question of possibility of citizenship to one of the Dred Scott
color, extraction, and origin, three Justices, viz., Taney, Wayne, and
Daniels, held the negative. Nelson and Campbell passed over the plea by
which the question was raised. Grier agreed with Nelson. Catron said the
question was not open. McLean agreed with Catron, but thought the plea
bad. Curtis agreed that the question was open, but attacked the plea,
met its averments, and decided that a free-born colored person, native
to any State, is a citizen thereof by birth, and is therefore a citizen
of the Union, and entitled to sue in the Federal Courts.
"Had a majority of the court directly sustained the plea in abatement,
and denied the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court appealed from, then all
else they could have said and done would have been done and said in a
cause not theirs to try and not theirs to discuss. In the absence of
such a majority, one step more was to be taken. And the next step
reveals an agreement of six of the Justices, on a point decisive of the
cause, and putting an end to all the functions of the court.
"It is this. Scott was first carried to Rock Island, in the State of
Illinois, where he remained about two years, before going with his
master to Fort Snelling, in the Territory of Wisconsin. His claim to
freedom was rested on the alleged effect of his translation from a slave
State, and again into a free territory. If, by his removal to Illinois,
he became emancipated from his master, the subsequent continuance of his
pilgrimage into the Louisiana purchase could not add to his freedom, nor
alter the fact. If, by reason of any want or infirmity in the laws of
Illinois, or of conformity on his part to their behests, Dred Scott
remained a slave while he remained in that State, then--for the sake of
learning the effect on him of his territorial residence beyond the
Mississippi, and of his marriage and other proceedings there, and the
effect of the sojournment and marriage of Harriet, in the same
territory, upon herself and her children--it might become needful to
advance one other step into the investigation of the law; to inspect the
Missouri Compromise, banishing slavery to the south of the line of 36°
30' in the Louisiana purchase.
"But no exigency of the cause ever demanded or justified that advance;
for six of the Justices, including the Chief Justice himself, decided
that the _status_ of the plaintiff, as free or slave, was dependent, not
upon the laws of the State in which he had been, but of the State of
Missouri, in which he was at the commencement of the suit. The Chief
Justice asserted that 'it is now firmly settled by the decisions of the
highest court in the State, that Scott and his family, on their return
were not free, but were, by the laws of Missouri, the property of the
defendant.' This was the burden of the opinion of Nelson, who declares
'the question is one solely depending upon the law of Missouri, and that
the Federal Court, sitting in the State, and trying the case before us,
was bound to follow it.' It received the emphatic endorsement of Wayne,
whose general concurrence was with the Chief Justice. Grier concurred in
set terms with Nelson on all 'the questions discussed by him.' Campbell
says, 'The claim of the plaintiff to freedom depends upon the effect to
be given to his absence from Missouri, in company with his master in
Illinois and Minnesota, _and this effect is to be ascertained by
reference to the laws of Missouri_.' Five of the Justices, then (if no
more of them), regard the law of Missouri as decisive of the plaintiff's
rights."]
[Footnote 35:--"Now, as we have already said in an earlier part of this
opinion upon a different point, the right of property in a slave is
distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution. The right to
traffic in it, _like an ordinary article of merchandise and property_,
was guaranteed to the citizens of the United States in every State that
might desire it, for twenty years."--_Ch. J. Taney_, 19 _How. U.S.R_.,
p. 451. _Vide_ language of Mr. Madison, note 34, as to "_merchandise_."]
[Footnote 36:--Not only was the right of property _not_ intended to be
"distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution"; but the
following extract from Mr. Madison demonstrates that the utmost care was
taken to avoid so doing:
"The clause as originally offered [respecting fugitive slaves] read, 'If
any person LEGALLY bound to service or labor in any of the United States
shall escape into another State," etc., etc. (Vol. 3, p. 1456.) In
regard to this, Mr. Madison says, "The term '_legally'_ was struck out,
and the words 'under the laws thereof,' inserted after the word State,
in compliance with the wish of some who thought the term 'legally'
equivocal and favoring the idea that slavery was legal in a moral point
of view."--_Ib_., p. 1589.]
[Footnote 37:--We subjoin a portion of the history alluded to by Mr.
Lincoln. The following extract relates to the provision of the
Constitution relative to the slave trade. (Article I, Sec. 9.)
_25th August_, 1787.--The report of the Committee of eleven being taken
up, Gen. [Charles Cotesworth] Pinckney moved to strike out the words
"the year 1800," and insert the words "the year 1808."
Mr. Gorham seconded the motion.
Mr. Madison--Twenty years will produce all the mischief that can be
apprehended from the liberty to import slaves. So long a term will be
more dishonorable to the American character than to say nothing about it
in the Constitution.
* * * * *
Mr. Gouverneur Morris was for making the clause read at once--
"The importation of slaves into North Carolina, South Carolina, and
Georgia, shall not be prohibited," etc. This, he said, would be most
fair, and would avoid _the _ ambiguity by which, under the power with
regard to naturalization, the liberty reserved to the States might be
defeated. He wished it to be known, also, that this part of the
Constitution was a compliance with those States. If the change of
language, however, should be objected to by the members from those
States, he should not urge it.
Col. Mason (of Virginia) was not against using the term "slaves," but
against naming North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, lest it
should give offence to the people of those States.
Mr. Sherman liked a description better than the terms proposed, which
had been declined by the old Congress and were not pleasing to some
people.
Mr. Clymer concurred with Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Williamson, of North Carolina, said that _both in opinion and
practice he was against slavery; but thought it more in favor of
humanity, from a view of all circumstances, to let in South Carolina and
Georgia, on those terms, than to exclude them from the Union_.
Mr. Morris withdrew his motion.
Mr. Dickinson wished the clause to be confined to the States which had
not themselves prohibited the importation of slaves, and for that
purpose moved to amend the clause so as to read--
"The importation of slaves into such of the States as shall permit the
same, shall not be prohibited by the Legislature of the United States,
until the year 1808," which was disagreed to, _nem. con_.
The first part of the report was then agreed to as follows:
"The migration or importation of such persons as the several States now
existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the
Legislature prior to the year 1808."
* * * * *
Mr. Sherman was against the second part ["but a tax or duty may be
imposed on such migration or importation at a rate not exceeding _the
average of the duties laid on imports_"], as acknowledging men to be
property by taxing them as such under the _character_ of slaves.
* * * * *
Mr. Madison _thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the like idea
that there could be property in men_. The reason of duties did not hold,
as slaves _are not, like merchandise_, consumed.
* * * * *
It was finally agreed, _nem. con_., to make the clause read--
"But a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding
_ten dollars_ for each PERSON."--_Madison Papers, Aug_. 25, 1787.]
[Footnote 38:--Compare this noble passage and that at page 18, with the
twaddle of Mr. Orr (note 30), and the slang of Mr. Douglas (note 37).]
[Footnote 39:--That demand has since been made. Says MR. O'CONOR,
counsel for the State of Virginia in the _Lemon Case_, page 44: "We
claim that under these various provisions of the Federal Constitution, a
citizen of Virginia has an immunity against the operation of any law
which the State of New York can enact, whilst he is a stranger and
wayfarer, or whilst passing through our territory; and that he has
absolute protection for all his domestic rights, and for all his rights
of property, which under the laws of the United States, and the laws of
his own State, he was entitled to, whilst in his own State. We claim
this, and neither more NOR LESS."
Throughout the whole of that case, in which the right to pass through
New York with slaves at the pleasure of the slave owners is maintained,
it is nowhere contended that the statute is contrary to the Constitution
of New York; but that the statute and the Constitution of the State are
both contrary to the Constitution of the United States.
The State of Virginia, not content with the decision of our own courts
upon the right claimed by them, is now engaged in carrying this, the
Lemon case, to the Supreme Court of the United States, hoping by a
decision there, in accordance with the intimations in the Dred Scott
case, to overthrow the Constitution of New York.
Senator Toombs, of Georgia, has claimed, in the Senate, that laws of
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, Ohio, Rhode
Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin, for the exclusion of slavery, conceded
to be warranted by the State Constitutions, are contrary to the
Constitution of the United States, and has asked for the enactment of
laws by the General Government which shall override the laws of those
States and the Constitutions which authorize them.]
[Footnote 40:--"Policy, humanity, and Christianity, alike forbid the
extension of the evils of free society to new people and coming
generations."--_Richmond Enquirer, Jan_. 22, 1856.
"I am satisfied that the mind of the South has undergone a change to
this great extent, that it is now the _almost universal belief_ in the
South, not only that the condition of African slavery in their midst, is
the best condition to which the African race has ever been subjected,
but that _it has the effect of ennobling both races, the white and the
black_."--_Senator Mason, of Virginia_.
"I declare again, as I did in reply to the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr.
Doolittle), that, in my opinion, slavery is a great moral, social, and
political blessing--a blessing to the slave, and a blessing to the
master."--_Mr. Brown, in the Senate, March_ 6, 1860.
"I am a Southern States' Rights man; I am an African slave-trader. I am
one of those Southern men who believe that slavery is right--morally,
religiously, socially, and politically." (Applause.) ... "I represent
the African Slave-trade interests of that section. (Applause.) I am
proud of the position I occupy in that respect. I believe the African
Slave-trader is a true missionary and a true Christian."
(Applause.)--_Mr. Gaulden, a delegate from First Congressional District
of Georgia, in the Charleston Convention, now a supporter of Mr.
Douglas_.
"Ladies and gentlemen, I would gladly speak again, but you see from the
tones of my voice that I am unable to. This has been a happy, a glorious
day. I shall never forget it. There is a charm about this beautiful day,
about this sea air, and especially about that peculiar institution of
yours--a clam bake. I think you have the advantage, in that respect, of
Southerners. For my own part, I have much more fondness for your clams
than I have for their niggers. But every man to his taste."--_Hon_
_Stephen A. Douglas's Address at Rocky Point, R.I., Aug._ 2, 1860.]
[Footnote 41:--It is interesting to observe how two profoundly logical
minds, though holding extreme, opposite views, have deduced this common
conclusion. Says Mr. O'Conor, the eminent leader of the New York Bar,
and the counsel for the State of Virginia in the Lemon case, in his
speech at Cooper Institute, December 19th, 1859:
"That is the point to which this great argument must come--Is negro
slavery unjust? If it is unjust, it violates that first rule of human
conduct--'Render to every man his due.' If it is unjust, it violates the
law of God which says, 'Love thy neighbor as thyself,' for that requires
that we should perpetrate no injustice. Gentlemen, if it could be
maintained that negro slavery was unjust, perhaps I might be
prepared--perhaps we all ought to be prepared--to go with that
distinguished man to whom allusion is frequently made, and say, 'There
is a higher law which compels us to trample beneath our feet the
Constitution established by our fathers, with all the blessings it
secures to their children.' But I insist--and that is the argument which
we must meet, and on which we must come to a conclusion that shall
govern our actions in the future selection of representatives in the
Congress of the United States--insist that negro slavery is not unjust."]