SLAVERY AGITATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AND RETIRING
OF SOUTHERN MEMBERS FROM THE HALL.
The most angry and portentous debate which had yet taken place in
Congress, occurred at this time in the House of Representatives.
It was brought on by Mr. William Slade, of Vermont, who, besides
presenting petitions of the usual abolition character, and moving
to refer them to a committee, moved their reference to a select
committee, with instructions to report a bill in conformity to
their prayer. This motion, inflammatory and irritating in itself,
and without practical legislative object, as the great majority of
the House was known to be opposed to it, was rendered still more
exasperating by the manner of supporting it. The mover entered into
a general disquisition on the subject of slavery, all denunciatory,
and was proceeding to speak upon it in the State of Virginia,
and other States, in the same spirit, when Mr. Legare, of South
Carolina, interposed, and--
"Hoped the gentleman from Vermont would allow him to make a
few remarks before he proceeded further. He sincerely hoped
that gentleman would consider well what he was about before he
ventured on such ground, and that he would take time to consider
what might be its probable consequences. He solemnly entreated
him to reflect on the possible results of such a course, which
involved the interests of a nation and a continent. He would
warn him, not in the language of defiance, which all brave and
wise men despised, but he would warn him in the language of a
solemn sense of duty, that if there was 'a spirit aroused in the
North in relation to this subject,' that spirit would encounter
another spirit in the South full as stubborn. He would tell
them that, when this question was forced upon the people of the
South, they would be ready to take up the gauntlet. He concluded
by urging on the gentleman from Vermont to ponder well on his
course before he ventured to proceed."
Mr. Slade continued his remarks when Mr. Dawson of Georgia, asked
him for the floor, that he might move an adjournment--evidently to
carry off the storm which he saw rising. Mr. Slade refused to yield
it; so the motion to adjourn could not be made. Mr. Slade continued,
and was proceeding to answer his own inquiry put to himself--_what
was Slavery?_ when Mr. Dawson again asked for the floor, to make has
motion of adjournment. Mr. Slade refused it: a visible commotion
began to pervade the House--members rising, clustering together, and
talking with animation. Mr. Slade continued, and was about reading
a judicial opinion in one of the Southern States which defined
a slave to be a chattel--when Mr. Wise called him to order for
speaking beside the question--the question being upon the abolition
of slavery in the District of Columbia, and Mr. Slade's remarks
going to its legal character, as property in a State. The Speaker,
Mr. John White, of Kentucky, sustained the call, saying it was not
in order to discuss the subject of slavery in any of the States.
Mr. Slade denied that he was doing so, and said he was merely
quoting a Southern judicial decision as he might quote a legal
opinion delivered in Great Britain. Mr. Robertson, of Virginia,
moved that the House adjourn. The Speaker pronounced the motion
(and correctly), out of order, as the member from Vermont was in
possession of the floor and addressing the House. He would, however,
suggest to the member from Vermont, who could not but observe the
state of the House, to confine himself strictly to the subject of
his motion. Mr. Slade went on at great length, when Mr. Petrikin,
of Pennsylvania, called him to order; but the Chair did not
sustain the call. Mr. Slade went on, quoting from the Declaration
of Independence, and the constitutions of the several States, and
had got to that of Virginia, when Mr. Wise called him to order for
reading papers without the leave of the House. The Speaker decided
that no paper, objected to, could be read without the leave of the
House. Mr. Wise then said:
"That the gentleman had wantonly discussed the abstract question
of slavery, going back to the very first day of the creation,
instead of slavery as it existed in the District, and the powers
and duties of Congress in relation to it. He was now examining
the State constitutions to show that as it existed in the States
it was against them, and against the laws of God and man. This
was out of order."
Mr. Slade explained, and argued in vindication of his course, and
was about to read a memorial of Dr. Franklin, and an opinion of Mr.
Madison on the subject of slavery--when the reading was objected
to by Mr. Griffin, of South Carolina; and the Speaker decided they
could not be read without the permission of the House. Mr. Slade,
without asking the permission of the House, which he knew would not
be granted, assumed to understand the prohibition as extending only
to himself personally, said--"_Then I send them to the clerk: let
him read them._" The Speaker decided that this was equally against
the rule. Then Mr. Griffin withdrew the objection, and Mr. Slade
proceeded to read the papers, and to comment upon them as he went
on, and was about to go back to the State of Virginia, and show what
had been the feeling there on the subject of slavery previous to
the date of Dr. Franklin's memorial: Mr. Rhett, of South Carolina,
inquired of the Chair what the opinions of Virginia fifty years
ago had to do with the case? The Speaker was about to reply, when
Mr. Wise rose with warmth, and said--"He has discussed the whole
abstract question of slavery: of slavery in Virginia: of slavery
in my own district: and I now ask all my colleagues to retire with
me from this hall." Mr. Slade reminded the Speaker that he had not
yielded the floor; but his progress was impeded by the condition
of the House, and the many exclamations of members, among whom Mr.
Halsey, of Georgia, was heard calling on the Georgia delegation to
withdraw with him; and Mr. Rhett was heard proclaiming, that the
South Carolina members had already consulted together, and agreed
to have a meeting at three o'clock in the committee room of the
District of Columbia. Here the Speaker interposed to calm the House,
standing up in his place and saying:
"The gentleman from Vermont had been reminded by the Chair that
the discussion of slavery, as existing within the States, was
not in order; when he was desirous to read a paper and it was
objected to, the Chair had stopped him; but the objection had
been withdrawn, and Mr. Slade had been suffered to proceed; he
was now about to read another paper, and objection was made; the
Chair would, therefore, take the question on permitting it to be
read."
Many members rose, all addressing the Chair at the same time, and
many members leaving the hall, and a general scene of noise and
confusion prevailing. Mr. Rhett succeeded in raising his voice above
the roar of the tempest which raged in the House, and invited the
entire delegations from all the slave States to retire from the
hall forthwith, and meet in the committee room of the District of
Columbia. The Speaker again essayed to calm the House, and again
standing up in his place, he recapitulated his attempts to preserve
order, and vindicated the correctness of his own conduct--seemingly
impugned by many. What his personal feelings were on the subject
(he was from a slave State), might easily be conjectured. He
had endeavored to enforce the rules. Had it been in his power
to restrain the discussion, he should promptly have exercised
the power; but it was not. Mr. Slade, continuing, said the paper
which he wished to read was of the continental Congress of 1774.
The Speaker was about to put the question on leave, when Mr. Cost
Johnson, of Maryland, inquired whether it would be in order to force
the House to vote that the member from Vermont be not permitted to
proceed? The Speaker replied it would not. Then Mr. James J. McKay,
of North Carolina--a clear, coolheaded, sagacious man--interposed
the objection which headed Mr. Slade. There was a rule of the House,
that when a member was called to order, he should take his seat; and
if decided to be out of order, he should not be allowed to speak
again, except on the leave of the House. Mr. McKay judged this to be
a proper occasion for the enforcement of that rule; and stood up and
said:
"That the gentleman had been pronounced out of order in
discussing slavery in the States; and the rule declared that
when a member was so pronounced by the Chair, he should take
his seat, and if any one objected to his proceeding again, he
should not do so, unless by leave of the House. Mr. McKay did
now object to the gentleman from Vermont proceeding any farther."
Redoubled noise and confusion ensued--a crowd of members rising
and speaking at once--who eventually yielded to the resounding
blows of the Speaker's hammer upon the lid of his desk, and his
apparent desire to read something to the House, as he held a book
(recognized to be that of the rules) in his hand. Obtaining quiet,
so as to enable himself to be heard, he read the rule referred to
by Mr. McKay; and said that, as objection had now, for the first
time, been made under that rule to the gentleman's resuming his
speech, the Chair decided that he could not do so without the leave
of the House. Mr. Slade attempted to go on: the Speaker directed
him to take his seat until the question of leave should be put.
Then, Mr. Slade, still keeping on his feet, asked leave to proceed
as in order, saying he would not discuss slavery in Virginia. On
that question Mr. Allen, of Vermont, asked the yeas and nays. Mr.
Rencher, of North Carolina, moved an adjournment. Mr. Adams, and
many others, demanded the yeas and nays on this motion, which were
ordered, and resulted in 106 yeas, and 63 nays--some fifty or sixty
members having withdrawn. This opposition to adjournment was one
of the worst features of that unhappy day's work--the only effect
of keeping the House together being to increase irritation, and
multiply the chances for an outbreak. From the beginning Southern
members had been in favor of it, and essayed to accomplish it,
but were prevented by the tenacity with which Mr. Slade kept
possession of the floor: and now, at last, when it was time to
adjourn any way--when the House was in a condition in which no good
could be expected, and great harm might be apprehended, there were
sixty-three members--being nearly one-third of the House--willing to
continue it in session. They were:
"Messrs. Adams, Alexander, H. Allen, J. W. Allen, Aycrigg,
Bell, Biddle, Bond, Borden, Briggs, Wm. B. Calhoun, Coffin,
Corwin, Cranston, Curtis, Cushing, Darlington, Davies, Dunn,
Evans, Everett, Ewing I. Fletcher, Fillmore, Goode, Grennell,
Haley, Hall, Hastings, Henry, Herod, Hoffman, Lincoln, Marvin,
S. Mason, Maxwell, McKennan, Milligan, M. Morris, C. Morris,
Naylor, Noyes, Ogle, Parmenter, Patterson, Peck, Phillips,
Potts, Potter, Rariden, Randolph, Reed, Ridgway, Russel,
Sheffer, Sibley, Slade, Stratton, Tillinghast, Toland, A. S.
White, J. White, E. Whittlesey--63."
The House then stood adjourned; and as the adjournment was being
pronounced, Mr. Campbell of South Carolina, stood up on a chair, and
calling for the attention of members, said:
"He had been appointed, as one of the Southern delegation, to
announce that all those gentlemen who represented slaveholding
States, were invited to attend the meeting now being held in the
District committee room."
Members from the slave-holding States had repaired in large numbers
to the room in the basement, where they were invited to meet.
Various passions agitated them--some violent. Extreme propositions
were suggested, of which Mr. Rhett, of South Carolina, in a letter
to his constituents, gave a full account of his own--thus:
"In a private and friendly letter to the editor of the
Charleston Mercury amongst other events accompanying the
memorable secession of the Southern members from the hall of the
House of Representatives, I stated to him, that I had prepared
two resolutions, drawn as amendments to the motion of the
member from Vermont, whilst he was discussing the institution
of slavery in the South, 'declaring, that the constitution
having failed to protect the South in the peaceable possession
and enjoyment of their rights and peculiar institutions, it was
expedient that the Union should be dissolved; and the other,
appointing a committee of two members from each State, to report
upon the best means of peaceably dissolving it.' They were
intended as amendments to a motion, to refer with instructions
to report a bill, abolishing slavery in the District of
Columbia. I expected them to share the fate, which inevitably
awaited the original motion, so soon as the floor could have
been obtained, viz., to be laid upon the table. My design in
presenting them, was, to place before Congress and the people,
what, in my opinion, was the true issue upon this great and
vital question; and to point out the course of policy by which
it should be met by the Southern States."
But extreme counsels did not prevail. There were members present,
who well considered that, although the provocation was great, and
the number voting for such a firebrand motion was deplorably large,
yet it was but little more than the one-fourth of the House, and
decidedly less than one half of the members from the free States: so
that, even if left to the free State vote alone, the motion would
have been rejected. But the motion itself, and the manner in which
it was supported, was most reprehensible--necessarily leading to
disorder in the House, the destruction of its harmony and capacity
for useful legislation, tending to a sectional segregation of the
members, the alienation of feeling between the North and the South;
and alarm to all the slaveholding States. The evil required a
remedy, but not the remedy of breaking up the Union; but one which
might prevent the like in future, while administering a rebuke upon
the past. That remedy was found in adopting a proposition to be
offered to the House, which, if agreed to, would close the door
against any discussion upon abolition petitions in future, and
assimilate the proceedings of the House, in that particular, to
those of the Senate. This proposition was put into the hands of Mr.
Patton, of Virginia, to be offered as an amendment to the rules at
the opening of the House the next morning. It was in these words:
"_Resolved_, That all petitions, memorials, and papers, touching
the abolition of slavery or the buying, selling, or transferring
of slaves, in any State, District, or Territory, of the United
States, be laid on the table, without being debated, printed,
read, or referred, and that no further action whatever shall be
had thereon."
Accordingly, at the opening of the House, Mr. Patton asked leave to
submit the resolution--which was read for information. Mr. Adams
objected to the grant of leave. Mr. Patton then moved a suspension
of the rules--which motion required two-thirds to sustain it; and,
unless obtained, this salutary remedy for an alarming evil (which
was already in force in the Senate) could not be offered. It was a
test motion, and on which the opponents of abolition agitation in
the House required all their strength: for unless two to one, they
were defeated. Happily the two to one were ready, and on taking the
yeas and nays, demanded by an abolition member (to keep his friends
to the track, and to hold the free State anti-abolitionists to their
responsibility at home), the result stood 135 yeas to 60 nays--the
full two-thirds, and fifteen over. The yeas on this important
motion, were:
Messrs. Hugh J. Anderson, John T. Andrews, Charles G. Atherton,
William Beatty, Andrew Beirne, John Bell, Bennet Bicknell,
Richard Biddle, Samuel Birdsall, Ratliff Boon, James W. Bouldin,
John C. Brodhead, Isaac H. Bronson, Andrew D. W. Bruyn, Andrew
Buchanan, John Calhoun, C. C. Cambreleng, Wm. B. Campbell,
John Campbell, Timothy J. Carter, Wm. B. Carter, Zadok Casey,
John Chambers, John Chaney, Reuben Chapman, Richard Cheatham,
Jonathan Cilley, John F. H. Claiborne, Jesse F. Cleaveland, Wm.
K. Clowney, Walter Coles, Thomas Corwin, Robert Craig, John W.
Crocket, Samuel Cushman, Edmund Deberry, John I. De Graff, John
Dennis, George C. Dromgoole, John Edwards, James Farrington,
John Fairfield, Jacob Fry, jr., James Garland, James Graham,
Seaton Grantland, Abr'm P. Grant, William J. Graves. Robert H.
Hammond, Thomas L. Hamer, James Harlan, Albert G. Harrison,
Richard Hawes, Micajah T. Hawkins, Charles E. Haynes, Hopkins
Holsey, Orrin Holt, George W. Hopkins, Benjamin C. Howard,
Edward B. Hubley, Jabez Jackson, Joseph Johnson, Wm. Cost
Johnson, John W. Jones, Gouverneur Kemble, Daniel Kilgore, John
Klingensmith, jr., Joab Lawler, Hugh S. Legare, Henry Logan,
Francis S. Lyon, Francis Mallory, James M. Mason, Joshua L.
Martin, Abram P. Maury, Wm. L. May, James J. McKay, Robert
McClellan, Abraham McClelland, Charles McClure, Isaac McKim,
Richard H. Menefee, Charles F. Mercer, Wm. Montgomery, Ely
Moore, Wm. S. Morgan, Samuel W. Morris, Henry A. Muhlenberg,
John L. Murray, Wm. H. Noble, John Palmer, Amasa J. Parker,
John M. Patton, Lemuel Paynter, Isaac S. Pennybacker, David
Petrikin, Lancelot Phelps, Arnold Plumer, Zadock Pratt, John H.
Prentiss, Luther Reily, Abraham Rencher, John Robertson, Samuel
T. Sawyer, Augustine H. Shepperd, Charles Shepard, Ebenezer J.
Shields, Matthias Sheplor, Francis O. J. Smith, Adam W. Snyder,
Wm. W. Southgate, James B. Spencer, Edward Stanly, Archibald
Stuart, Wm. Stone, John Taliaferro, Wm. Taylor, Obadiah Titus,
Isaac Toucey, Hopkins L. Turney, Joseph R. Underwood, Henry
Vail, David D. Wagener, Taylor Webster, Joseph Weeks, Albert S.
White, John White, Thomas T. Whittlesey, Lewis Williams, Sherrod
Williams, Jared W. Williams, Joseph L. Williams, Christ'r H.
Williams, Henry A. Wise, Archibald Yell.
The nays were:
Messrs. John Quincy Adams, James Alexander, jr., Heman Allen,
John W. Allen, J. Banker Aycrigg, Wm. Key Bond, Nathaniel B.
Borden, George N. Briggs, Wm. B. Calhoun, Charles D. Coffin,
Robert B. Cranston, Caleb Cushing, Edward Darlington, Thomas
Davee, Edward Davies, Alexander Duncan, George H. Dunn, George
Evans, Horace Everett, John Ewing, Isaac Fletcher, Millard
Filmore, Henry A. Foster, Patrick G. Goode, George Grennell,
jr., Elisha Haley, Hiland Hall, Alexander Harper, Wm. S.
Hastings, Thomas Henry, Wm. Herod, Samuel Ingham, Levi Lincoln,
Richard P. Marvin, Samson Mason, John P. B. Maxwell, Thos. M. T.
McKennan, Mathias Morris, Calvary Morris, Charles Naylor, Joseph
C. Noyes, Charles Ogle, Wm. Parmenter, Wm. Patterson, Luther
C. Peck, Stephen C. Phillips, David Potts, jr., James Rariden,
Joseph F. Randolph, John Reed, Joseph Ridgway, David Russell,
Daniel Sheffer, Mark H. Sibley, Wm. Slade, Charles C. Stratton,
Joseph L. Tillinghast, George W. Toland, Elisha Whittlesey,
Thomas Jones Yorke.
This was one of the most important votes ever delivered in the
House. Upon its issue depended the quiet of the House on one hand,
or on the other, the renewal, and perpetuation of the scenes of the
day before--ending in breaking up all deliberation, and all national
legislation. It was successful, and that critical step being safely
over, the passage of the resolution was secured--the free State
friendly vote being itself sufficient to carry it: but, although
the passage of the resolution was secured, yet resistance to it
continued. Mr. Patton rose to recommend his resolution as a peace
offering, and to prevent further agitation by demanding the previous
question. He said:
"He had offered this resolution in the spirit of peace and
harmony. It involves (said Mr. P.), so far as I am concerned,
and so far as concerns some portion of the representatives of
the slaveholding States, a concession; a concession which we
make for the sake of peace, harmony, and union. We offer it in
the hope that it may allay, not exasperate excitement; we desire
to extinguish, not to kindle a flame in the country. In that
spirit, sir, without saying one word in the way of discussion;
without giving utterance to any of those emotions which swell in
my bosom at the recollection of what took place here yesterday,
I shall do what I have never yet done since I have been a member
of this House, and which I have very rarely sustained, when done
by others: I move the previous question."
Then followed a scene of disorder, which thus appears in the
Register of Debates:
"Mr. Adams rose and said. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman precedes
his resolution--(Loud cries of 'Order! order!' from all parts of
the hall.) Mr. A. He preceded it with remarks--('Order! order!')
"The Chair reminded the gentleman that it was out of order to
address the House after the demand for the previous question.
"Mr. Adams. I ask the House--(continued cries of 'Order!' which
completely drowned the honorable member's voice.)"
Order having been restored, the next question was--"Is the demand
for the previous question seconded?"--which seconding would
consist of a majority of the whole House--which, on a division,
quickly showed itself. Then came the further question--"_Shall
the main question be now put?_"--on which the yeas and nays were
demanded, and taken; and ended in a repetition of the vote of the
same 63 against it. The main question was then put, and carried;
but again, on yeas and nays, to hold free State members to their
responsibility; showing the same 63 in the negative, with a few
additional votes from free State members, who, having staked
themselves on the vital point of suspending the rules, saw no use in
giving themselves further trouble at home, by giving an unnecessary
vote in favor of stifling abolition debate. In this way, the ranks
of the 63 were increased to 74.
Thus was stifled, and in future prevented in the House, the
inflammatory debates on these disturbing petitions. It was the great
session of their presentation--being offered by hundreds, and signed
by hundreds of thousands of persons--many of them women, who forgot
their sex and their duties, to mingle in such inflammatory work;
some of them clergymen, who forgot their mission of peace, to stir
up strife among those who should be brethren. Of the pertinacious
63, who backed Mr. Slade throughout, the most notable were Mr.
Adams, who had been President of the United States--Mr. Fillmore,
who became so--and Mr. Caleb Cushing, who eventually became as ready
to abolish all impediments to the general diffusion of slavery, as
he then was to abolish slavery itself in the District of Columbia.
It was a portentous contest. The motion of Mr. Slade was, not for an
inquiry into the expediency of abolishing slavery in the District of
Columbia (a motion in itself sufficiently inflammatory), but to get
the command of the House to bring in a bill for that purpose--which
would be a decision of the question. His motion failed. The storm
subsided; and very few of the free State members who had staked
themselves on the issue, lost any thing among their constituents for
the devotion which they had shown to the Union.