SPEECH.

Before Mr. Sumner began, Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, read the

following interrogatories.

“It may be that the speech which the honorable Senator

intends to pronounce may cover the points which I have

embodied in some questions to him. If not, I should take

it very kindly, if the honorable Senator will answer the

questions. I will read them.

“1. Are slaves in the District of Columbia, and in the

slaveholding States, legally the subject of property?

“2. Has Congress the power to deprive the owners of lands

and houses and lots situated in the District of Columbia of

that property?

“3. What law or laws give the owners of real estate in the

District of Columbia their right to such property? Inform

us where such law or laws may be found and read.

“4. What law or laws give a different right and title to

slaves and to real estate? Where can such law or laws be

found?

“5. Is or not the Constitution, and the laws of the United

States made in pursuance thereof, and all the treaties

made under the authority of the United States, the supreme

law of the land, which all persons, without any exception

whatever, are bound to obey?

“6. Is or not the Supreme Court of the United States the

proper and final tribunal to judge and determine all

questions, whether in law or equity, under the Constitution

and laws of the United States?”

The answers to these interrogatories, so far as they bear on

the main question, will be found in the course of the speech.

MR. PRESIDENT,--With unspeakable delight I hail this measure and the

prospect of its speedy adoption. Though only a small instalment of

that great debt to an enslaved race which we all owe, yet will it be

recognized in history as a victory of humanity. At home, throughout

our own country, it will be welcomed with gratitude, while abroad it

will quicken the hopes of all who love Freedom. Liberal institutions

will gain everywhere by the abolition of Slavery at the national

capital. Nobody can read that slaves were once sold in the markets of

Rome, beneath the eyes of the Sovereign Pontiff, without confessing the

scandal to religion, even in a barbarous age; and nobody can hear that

slaves are now sold in the markets of Washington, beneath the eyes of

the President, without confessing the scandal to liberal institutions.

For the sake of the national name, if not for the sake of justice, let

the scandal cease.

In early discussions of this question many topics were introduced that

obtain little attention now. It was part of the tactics of Slavery to

claim absolute immunity. Indeed, without such immunity it had small

chance to exist. Such a wrong, so utterly outrageous, could find safety

only where protected from inquiry. Therefore Slave-Masters always

insisted that petitions against its maintenance at the national capital

were not to be received, that it was unconstitutional to touch it even

here within the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress, and that, if it

were touched, it should be only under the auspices of the neighboring

States of Virginia and Maryland. On these points elaborate arguments

were constructed, useless to consider now. Whatever the opinions of

individual Senators, the judgment of the country is fixed. The right of

petition, first vindicated by the matchless perseverance of John Quincy

Adams, is now beyond question, and the constitutional power of Congress

is hardly less free from doubt. It is enough to say on this point,

that, if Congress cannot abolish Slavery here, then there is no power

anywhere to abolish it here, and this wrong will endure always, lasting

as the capital itself.

As the moment of justice approaches, we are called to meet a different

objection, inspired by generous sentiments. It is urged, that, since

there can be no such thing as property in man, especially within the

exclusive jurisdiction of Congress, therefore all held as slaves at

the national capital are justly entitled to freedom without price or

compensation of any kind,--or, at least, that any money paid should be

distributed according to an account stated between master and slave.

If this question were determined according to divine justice, so far

as we may be permitted to contemplate such a judgment, it is obvious

that nothing can be due to the master, and that any money paid belongs

rather to the slave, who for generations has been despoiled of every

right and possession. If we undertake to audit this fearful account,

pray what sum shall be allowed for the prolonged torments of the lash?

what treasure shall be voted to the slave for wife ravished from his

side, for children stolen, for knowledge shut out, and for all the

fruits of labor wrested from him and his fathers? No such account can

be stated. It is impossible. Once begin the inquiry, and all must go to

the slave. It only remains for Congress, anxious to secure this great

boon, and unwilling to embarrass or jeopard it, to act practically,

according to its finite powers, in the light of existing usage, and

even existing prejudice, under which these odious relations have

assumed the form of law; nor can we hesitate at any forbearance or

sacrifice, provided Freedom is established without delay.

Testimony and eloquence have been accumulated against Slavery; but

on this occasion I shall confine myself precisely to the argument

for the ransom of slaves at the National Capital; although such is

Slavery that it is impossible to consider it in any single aspect

without confronting its whole many-sided wickedness, while the broad,

diversified field of remedy is naturally open to review. At some other

time the great question of emancipation in the States may be more fitly

considered, together with those other questions where the Senator

from Wisconsin [Mr. DOOLITTLE] has allowed himself to take sides so

earnestly,--whether there is an essential incompatibility between the

two races, so that they cannot live together except as master and

slave? and whether the freedmen shall be encouraged to exile themselves

to other lands, or rather continue their labor here at home? Enough

for the present to consider Slavery at the National Capital. And here

we are met by two inquiries, so frankly addressed to the Senate by the

clear-headed Senator from Kansas [Mr. POMEROY]: first, _Has Slavery

any constitutional existence at the national capital?_ and, secondly,

_Shall money be paid to secure its abolition?_ The answer to these two

inquiries will make our duty clear. If Slavery has no constitutional

existence here, then more than ever is Congress bound to interfere,

even with money; for the scandal must be peremptorily stopped, without

any postponement, or any consultation of the people on a point which is

not within their power.

* * * * *

It may be said, that, whether Slavery be constitutional or not,

nevertheless it exists, and therefore this inquiry is superfluous.

True, it exists as a MONSTROUS FACT; but it is none the less important

to consider its origin, that we may understand how, assuming the form

of law, it was able to shelter itself beneath the protecting shield of

the Constitution. When we see clearly that it is without any such just

protection, that the law which declares it is baseless, and that in all

its pretensions it is essentially and utterly brutal and unnatural,

we shall have less consideration for the Slave Tyranny, which, in

satisfied pride, has thus far--not without compunction at different

moments--ruled the national capital, reducing all things here, public

opinion, social life, and even the administration of justice, to its

own degraded standard, so as to fulfil the curious words of an old

English poet:--

“It serves, yet reigns as King;

It lives, yet ’s death; it pleases, full of paine.

Monster! ah, who, who can thy beeing faigne,

Thou shapelesse shape, live death, paine pleasing, servile raigne?”[214]

It is true, there can be no such thing as property in man: and here I

begin to answer the questions propounded by the Senator from Kentucky

[Mr. DAVIS]. If this pretension is recognized anywhere, it is only

another instance of custom, which is so powerful as to render the

idolater insensible to the wickedness of idolatry, and the cannibal

insensible to the brutality of cannibalism. To argue against such a

pretension seems to be vain; for the pretension exists in open defiance

of reason as well as of humanity. It will not yield to argument; nor

will it yield to persuasion. It must be encountered by authority. It

was not the planters in the British islands or in the French islands

who organized emancipation, but the distant governments across the

sea, far removed from local prejudice, which at last forbade the

outrage. Had these planters been left to themselves, they would

have clung to the pretension, as men among us still cling to it. In

making this declaration against the idea of property in man, I say

nothing new. An honored predecessor of the Senator from Maryland [Mr.

KENNEDY], whose fame as a statesman was eclipsed, perhaps, by his more

remarkable fame as a lawyer,--I mean William Pinkney, and it is among

the recollections of my youth that I heard Chief Justice Marshall call

him the undoubted head of the American bar,--in a speech before the

Maryland House of Delegates, spoke as statesman and lawyer, when he

said:--

“Sir, by the eternal principles of natural justice no master in

the State has a right to hold his slave in bondage for a single

hour.”[215]

And Henry Brougham spoke not only as statesman and lawyer, but as

orator also, when, in the British Parliament, he uttered these

memorable words:--

“Tell me not of rights, talk not of the property of the

planter in his slaves. I deny the right, I acknowledge not

the property. The principles, the feelings, of our common

nature rise in rebellion against it. Be the appeal made to

the understanding or to the heart, the sentence is the same

that rejects it. In vain you tell me of laws that sanction

such a claim. There is a law above all the enactments of human

codes,--the same throughout the world, the same in all times:

… it is the law written on the heart of man by the finger of

his Maker; and by that law, unchangeable and eternal, while men

despise fraud and loathe rapine and abhor blood, they will

reject with indignation the wild and guilty fantasy that man

can hold property in man.”[216]

It has been sometimes said that the finest sentence of the English

language is that famous description of Law with which Hooker closes the

first book of his “Ecclesiastical Polity”; but I cannot doubt that this

wonderful denunciation of an irrational and inhuman pretension will be

remembered hereafter with higher praise; for it gathers into surpassing

eloquence the waking and immitigable instincts of Universal Man.

If I enter now into analysis of Slavery, and say familiar things, it is

because such exposition is an essential link in the present inquiry.

Looking carefully at Slavery as it is, we find that it is not merely a

single gross pretension, utterly inadmissible, but an aggregation of

gross pretensions, all and each utterly inadmissible. They are five

in number: first, the pretension of property in man; secondly, the

denial of the marriage relation,--for slaves are “coupled” only, and

not married; thirdly, the denial of the paternal relation; fourthly,

the denial of instruction; and, fifthly, the appropriation of all

the labor of the slave and its fruits by the master. Such are the

five essential elements which we find in Slavery; and this fivefold

barbarism, so utterly indefensible in every point, is maintained for

the single purpose of compelling labor without wages. Of course such

a pretension is founded in force, and nothing else. It begins with

the kidnapper in Guinea or Congo, traverses the sea with the pirate

slave-trader in his crowded hold, and is continued here by virtue of

laws representing and embodying the same brutal force that prevailed

in the kidnapper and the pirate slave-trader. Slavery, wherever it

exists, is the triumph of force, sometimes in the strong arm of an

individual, and sometimes in the strong arm of law, but in principle

always the same. Depending upon force, he is master who happens to be

stronger,--so that, if the slave were stronger, he would be master, and

the master would be slave. Beyond all doubt, according to reason and

justice, every slave possesses the same right to enslave his master

that his master possesses to enslave him. If this simple statement of

unquestionable principles needed confirmation, it would be found in the

solemn judgments of courts. Here, for instance, are the often quoted

words of Mr. Justice McLean, of the Supreme Court of the United States:

“Slavery is admitted by almost all who have examined the subject to

be founded in wrong, in oppression, in _power_ against _right_.”[217]

And here are the words of the Supreme Court of North Carolina: “Such

services [of a slave] can only be expected from one who has no will

of his own, who surrenders his will in implicit obedience to that

of another. Such obedience is the consequence only of _uncontrolled

authority over the body_. There is nothing else which can operate to

produce the effect.”[218] And the Supreme Court of the United States,

by the lips of Chief Justice Marshall, has openly declared, in a famous

case, read the other day by the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. DAVIS], that

“Slavery has its origin in _force_.”[219] Thus does it appear by most

authoritative words, that this monstrous Barbarism is derived not

from reason, or nature, or justice, or goodness, but from _force_, and

nothing else.

Here in the national capital, under the exclusive jurisdiction of

Congress, the FORCE which now maintains this unnatural system is

supplied by Congress. Without Congress the “uncontrolled authority”

of the master would cease. Without Congress the master would not be

master, nor would the slave be slave. Congress, then, in existing

legislation, is the power behind, which enslaves our fellow-men.

Therefore does it behoove Congress, by proper, instant action, to

relieve itself of this painful responsibility.

The responsibility becomes more painful, when it is considered that

Slavery exists at the national capital absolutely without support of

any kind in the Constitution: and here again I answer the Senator

from Kentucky [Mr. DAVIS]. Nor is this all. Situated within the

exclusive jurisdiction of the Constitution, where State rights cannot

prevail, it exists in open defiance of most cherished principles.

Let the Constitution be rightly interpreted by a just tribunal, and

Slavery must cease here at once. The decision of a court would be as

potent as an Act of Congress. And now, as I confidently assert this

conclusion, which bears so directly on the present question, pardon

me, if I express the satisfaction with which I recur to an earlier

period, shortly after I entered the Senate, when, vindicating the

principle now accepted, but then disowned, that _Freedom and not

Slavery is National_, I insisted upon its application to Slavery

everywhere within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Constitution, and

declared that Congress might as well undertake to make a king as to

make a slave.[220] That argument has never been answered; it cannot

be answered. Nor can I forget that this same conclusion, having such

important bearings, was maintained by Mr. Chase, while a member of

this body, in that masterly effort where he unfolded the relations of

the National Government to Slavery,[221] and also by the late Horace

Mann, in a most eloquent and exhaustive speech in the other House,

where no point is left untouched to show that Slavery in the national

capital is an _outlaw_.[222] Among all the speeches in the protracted

discussion of Slavery, I know none more worthy of profound study than

those two, so different in character and yet so harmonious in result.

If authority could add to irresistible argument, it would be found in

the well-known opinion of the late Mr. Justice McLean, in a published

letter, declaring the constitutional impossibility of Slavery in the

National Territories, because, in the absence of express power under

the Constitution to establish or recognize Slavery, there was nothing

for the breath of Slavery, as respiration could not exist where there

was no atmosphere. The learned judge was right, and his illustration

was felicitous. Although applied at the time only to the Territories,

it is of equal force everywhere within the exclusive jurisdiction of

Congress; for within such jurisdiction there is no atmosphere in which

Slavery can live.

If this question were less important, I should not occupy time with

its discussion. But we may learn to detest Slavery still more, when we

see how completely it instals itself here in utter disregard of the

Constitution, compelling Congress ignobly to do its bidding. The bare

existence of such a barbarous injustice in the metropolis of a Republic

gloriously declaring that “all men are entitled to life, liberty, and

the pursuit of happiness,” is a mockery which may excite surprise; but

when we bring it to the touchstone of the Constitution, and consider

the action of Congress, surprise is deepened into indignation.

* * * * *

How, Sir, was this foothold secured? When and by what process did the

National Government, solemnly pledged to Freedom, undertake to maintain

the Slave-Master here in the exercise of that _force_, or “unrestrained

power” which swings the lash, fastens the chain, robs the wages, sells

the child, and tears the wife from the husband? A brief inquiry will

show historically how it occurred: and here again I answer the Senator

from Kentucky.

The sessions of the Revolutionary Congress were held, according to

the exigencies of war or the convenience of members, at Philadelphia,

Baltimore, Lancaster, York, Princeton, Annapolis, Trenton, and New

York. An insult at Philadelphia from a band of mutineers caused

an adjournment to Princeton, in 1783, which was followed by the

discussion, from time to time, of the question of a permanent seat

of government. On the 7th of October, 1783, a motion was made by Mr.

Gerry, of Massachusetts, “That buildings for the use of Congress be

erected on the banks of the Delaware, near Trenton, or of the Potomac,

near Georgetown, provided a suitable district can be procured on one

of the rivers as aforesaid for a federal town, and that the right of

soil, and an exclusive or such other jurisdiction as Congress may

direct, shall be vested in the United States.”[223] Thus did the first

proposition of a national capital within the exclusive jurisdiction of

Congress proceed from a representative of Massachusetts. The subject of

Slavery at that time attracted little attention; but at a later day,

in the Constitutional Convention, this same honored representative

showed the nature of the jurisdiction which he would claim, according

to the following record: “Mr. Gerry thought we had nothing to do with

the conduct of the States as to slaves, _but ought to be careful

not to give any sanction to it_.”[224] In these words will be found

our own cherished principle, _Freedom National, Slavery Sectional_,

expressed with homely and sententious simplicity. There is something

grateful and most suggestive in the language employed, “we ought to be

careful not to give any sanction to it.” In the first Congress under

the Constitution, the same representative, during the debate on the

Slave-Trade, gave further expression to this same conviction, when he

said that “he highly commended the part the Society of Friends had

taken; it was the cause of humanity they had interested themselves

in.”[225]

The proposition of Mr. Gerry in reference to a national capital, after

assuming various forms, subsided. But in 1785 three commissioners were

appointed “to lay out a district of not less than two nor exceeding

three miles square, on the banks of either side of the Delaware, not

more than eight miles above or below the lower falls thereof, for a

federal town.”[226] At the Congress which met at New York two years

later, unsuccessful efforts were made to substitute the Potomac for

the Delaware. The commissioners, though appointed, never entered

upon their business. At last, by the adoption of the Constitution,

the subject was presented in a new form, under the following clause:

“The Congress shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation, in

all cases whatsoever, over such district, not exceeding ten miles

square, as may, by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of

Congress, become the seat of government of the United States.” From

the records of the Convention it does not appear that this clause

occasioned debate. But it broke out in the earliest Congress. Virginia

and Maryland, each, by acts of their respective Legislatures, tendered

the ten miles square, while similar propositions were made by citizens

of Pennsylvania and New Jersey. After long and animated discussion,

Germantown, in Pennsylvania, was on the point of being adopted, when

the subject was postponed till the next session. Havre de Grace and

Wright’s Ferry, both on the Susquehanna, Baltimore, on the Patapsco,

and Connogocheague, on the Potomac, divided opinions. In the course of

the debate, Mr. Gerry, who had first proposed the Potomac, now opposed

it. He pronounced it highly unreasonable to fix the seat of government

where nine States out of the thirteen would be to the northward, and

adverted to the sacrifice the Northern States were ready to make in

going as far south as Baltimore. An agreement seemed impossible, when

the South suddenly achieved one of those political triumphs by which

its predominance in the National Government was established.

Pending at this time was the great and trying proposition to assume

the State debts, which, being at first defeated through Southern votes,

was at last carried by a “compromise,” according to which the seat of

government was placed on the Potomac, thus settling the much vexed

question. Mr. Jefferson, in a familiar account, thus sketches the

“compromise.”

“It was observed that this pill [the assumption of the State

debts] would be peculiarly bitter to the Southern States, _and

that some concomitant measure should be adopted to sweeten

it a little to them_. There had before been propositions

to fix the seat of government either at Philadelphia or at

Georgetown on the Potomac, and it was thought that by giving it

to Philadelphia for ten years, and to Georgetown permanently

afterwards, this might, as an anodyne, calm in some degree the

ferment which might be excited by the other measure alone. So

two of the Potomac members (White and Lee, but White with a

revulsion of stomach almost convulsive) agreed to change their

votes, and Hamilton undertook to carry the other point.”[227]

Such was one of the earliest victories of Slavery in the name of

“Compromise.” It is difficult to estimate the evil consequences thus

entailed upon the country.

The bill establishing the seat of government, having already passed the

Senate, was adopted by the House of Representatives, after vehement

debate and many calls of the yeas and nays, by a vote of thirty-two to

twenty-nine, on the 9th of July, 1790. A district of territory, not

exceeding ten miles square, on the river Potomac, was accepted for the

permanent seat of the Government of the United States: “_Provided,

nevertheless_, that the operation of the laws of the State within such

district shall not be affected by this acceptance, until the time

fixed for the removal of the Government thereto, _and until Congress

shall otherwise by law provide_.”[228] Here, it will be seen, was a

positive saving of the laws of the States for a limited period, so far

as Congress had power to save them, within the exclusive jurisdiction

of the Constitution; but there was also complete recognition of the

power of Congress to change these laws, and an implied promise to

assume the “exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever” contemplated

by the Constitution.

In response to this Act of Congress, Maryland, by formal act, ceded

the territory now constituting the District of Columbia “in full and

absolute right, and exclusive jurisdiction, as well of soil as of

persons residing or to reside thereon,”--provided that the jurisdiction

of Maryland “shall not cease or determine, _until Congress shall by law

provide for the government thereof_.”[229]

In pursuance of this contract between the United States of the one

part and Maryland of the other part, expressed in solemn statutes,

the present seat of government was occupied in November, 1800, when

Congress proceeded to assume that complete jurisdiction conferred in

the Constitution, by enacting, on the 27th of February, 1801, “that

the laws of the State of Maryland, _as they now exist_, shall be and

continue in force in that part of the said District which was ceded

by that State to the United States, and by them accepted for the

permanent seat of government.”[230] Thus at one stroke all existing

laws of Maryland were adopted by Congress in gross, and from that time

forward became the laws of the United States at the national capital.

Although known historically as laws of Maryland, they ceased at once

to be laws of that State, for they draw their vitality from Congress

alone, under the Constitution of the United States, as completely as if

every statute had been solemnly reënacted. And now we see precisely how

Slavery obtained its foothold.

Among the statutes of Maryland thus solemnly reënacted in gross was the

following, originally passed as early as 1715, in colonial days.

“All negroes and other slaves already imported or hereafter

to be imported into this province, and all children now born

or hereafter to be born of such negroes and slaves, shall be

slaves during their natural lives.”[231]

Slavery cannot exist without barbarous laws in its support. Maryland,

accordingly, in the spirit of Slavery, added other provisions, also

reënacted by Congress in the same general bundle, of which the

following is an example.

“_No negro or mulatto slave_, free negro or mulatto born of a

white woman, during his time of servitude by law, … _shall be

admitted and received as good and valid evidence in law, in

any matter_ or thing whatsoever depending before any court of

record or before any magistrate within this province, _wherein

any Christian white person is concerned_.”[232]

At a later day the following kindred provision was added, in season to

be reënacted by Congress in the same code.

“No slave manumitted agreeably to the laws of this State …

shall be entitled … to give evidence against any white person,

or shall be recorded as competent evidence to manumit any slave

petitioning for freedom.”[233]

And such is the law for Slavery at the national capital.

It will be observed that the original statute which undertakes to

create Slavery in Maryland does not attaint the blood beyond two

generations. It is confined to “all negroes and other slaves,” and

their “children,” “during their natural lives.” These are slaves, but

none others, unless a familiar rule of interpretation is reversed, and

such words are extended rather than restrained. And yet it is by virtue

of this colonial statute, with all its ancillary barbarism, adopted

by Congress, that slaves are still held at the national capital. It

is true that at the time of its adoption there were few slaves here

to whom it was applicable. For ten years previous, the present area

of Washington, according to received tradition, contained hardly

five hundred inhabitants, all told, and these were for the most part

laborers distributed in houses merely for temporary accommodation. But

all these musty, antediluvian, wicked statutes, of which you have seen

a specimen, took their place at once in the national legislation, and

under their supposed authority slaves multiplied, and Slavery became

a national institution. And it now continues only by virtue of this

Slave Code borrowed from early colonial days, which, though flagrantly

inconsistent with the Constitution, has never yet been repudiated by

Court or Congress.

I have said that this Slave Code, even assuming it applicable to

slaves beyond the “natural lives” of two generations, is flagrantly

inconsistent with the Constitution. On this point the argument is so

plain that it may be shown like a diagram.

Under the Constitution, Congress has “exclusive legislation in all

cases whatsoever” at the national capital. The cession by Maryland was

without condition, and the acceptance by Congress was also without

condition; so that the territory fell at once within this exclusive

jurisdiction. But Congress can exercise no power except in conformity

with the Constitution. Its exclusive jurisdiction in all cases

whatsoever is controlled and limited by the Constitution, out of which

it is derived. Now, looking at the Constitution, we find, first, that

there are no words authorizing Congress to establish or recognize

Slavery, and, secondly, that there are positive words which prohibit

Congress from the exercise of any such power. The argument, therefore,

is twofold: first, from the absence of authority, and, secondly, from

positive prohibition.

Of course, a barbarism like Slavery, having its origin in force and

nothing else, can have no legal or constitutional support except

from positive sanction. It can spring from no doubtful phrase. It

must be declared by unambiguous words, incapable of a double sense.

Here I repeat an argument which I have presented before, when on

other occasions arraigning the pretensions of Slavery under the

Constitution, but which, so long as Slavery claims immunity, cannot

be allowed to drop out of sight. It begins with the great words of

Lord Mansfield, who, in the memorable case of Somerset, said: “The

state of Slavery is of such a nature that it is incapable of being

introduced on any reasons, moral or political, but only by _positive

law_.… It is so odious that nothing can be suffered to support it

but POSITIVE LAW.”[234] This principle has been adopted by tribunals

even in slaveholding States.[235] But I do not stop to dwell on these

authorities. Even the language, “exclusive legislation in all cases

whatsoever,” cannot be made to sanction Slavery. It wants those

positive words, leaving nothing to implication, which are obviously

required, especially when we consider the professed object of the

Constitution, as declared in its Preamble, to “establish justice and

secure the blessings of liberty.” There is no power in the Constitution

to make a king, or, thank God, to make a slave; and the absence of all

such power is hardly more clear in one case than in the other. The word

_king_ nowhere occurs in the Constitution, nor does the word _slave_.

But if there be no such power, then all Acts of Congress sustaining

Slavery at the national capital must be unconstitutional and void. The

stream cannot rise higher than the fountain head; nay, more, _nothing

can come out of nothing_; and if there be nothing in the Constitution

authorizing Congress to make a slave, there can be nothing valid in

any subordinate legislation. It is a pretension which has thus far

prevailed simply because Slavery predominated over Congress and courts.

To all who insist that Congress may sustain Slavery in the national

capital I put the question, Where in the Constitution is the power

found? If you cannot show where, do not assert the power. So hideous

an effrontery must be authorized in unmistakable words. But where are

the words? In what article, clause, or line? They cannot be found. I

challenge their production. Insult not human nature by pretending

that its most cherished rights can be sacrificed without solemn

authority. Remember that every presumption and every leaning must be

in favor of Freedom and against Slavery. Remember, too, that no nice

interpretation, no strained construction, no fancied deduction, can

suffice to sanction the enslavement of our fellow-men. And do not

degrade the Constitution by foisting upon its blameless text the idea

of property in man. It is not there; and if you think you see it there,

it is simply because you make the Constitution a reflection of yourself.

A single illustration will show the absurdity of this pretension. If,

under the clause giving to Congress “exclusive legislation” at the

national capital, Slavery may be established, and under these words

Congress is empowered to create slaves instead of citizens, then, under

the same words, it may do the same thing in the “forts, magazines,

arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings” belonging to the

United States, wherever situated, for these are all placed within the

same “exclusive legislation.” The extensive navy-yard at Charlestown,

in the very shadow of Bunker Hill, may be filled with slaves, with

enforced toil to take the place of that cheerful, well-paid labor

whose busy hum is the best music of the place. Such an act, however

consistent with slaveholding tyranny, would not be regarded as

constitutional at Bunker Hill.

If there were any doubt on this point, and the absence of all authority

were not perfectly clear, the prohibitions of the Constitution

would settle the question. It is true that Congress has “exclusive

legislation” within the District; but the prohibitions to grant titles

of nobility, to pass _ex post facto_ laws, to pass bills of attainder,

and to establish religion, are unquestionable limitations of this

power. There is also another limitation, equally unquestionable.

It is found in an Amendment proposed by the First Congress, on the

recommendation of several States, as follows:--

“No PERSON shall be deprived of life, LIBERTY, or property,

without _due process of law_.”

This prohibition, according to the Supreme Court, is obligatory on

Congress.[236] It is also applicable to all claimed as slaves; for,

in the eye of the Constitution, every human being within its sphere,

whether Caucasian, Indian, or African, from the President to the

slave, is a _person_. Of this there is no question. But a remarkable

incident of history confirms the conclusion. As originally recommended

by Virginia, North Carolina, and Rhode Island, this proposition was

restricted to the _freeman_. Its language was,--

“No _freeman_ ought to be deprived of his life, _liberty_, or

property, but by the law of the land.”[237]

Of course, if the word _freeman_ had been adopted, this clause would

be restricted in its effective power. Deliberately rejecting this

limitation, the authors of the Amendment recorded their purpose that

no _person_, within the national jurisdiction, of whatever character,

shall be deprived of _liberty_ without due process of law. The latter

words are borrowed from Magna Charta, and they mean without due

presentment, indictment, or other judicial proceedings. But Congress,

undertaking to support Slavery at the national capital, enacts that

_persons_ may be deprived of liberty there without any presentment,

indictment, or other judicial proceedings. Therefore every _person_ now

detained as a slave in the national capital is detained in violation

of the Constitution. Not only is his liberty taken without due process

of law, but, since he is tyrannically despoiled of all the fruits

of his industry, his property also is taken without due process of

law. You talk sometimes of guaranties of the Constitution. Here is an

unmistakable guaranty, and I hold you to it.

Bringing the argument together, the conclusion may be briefly stated.

The five-headed barbarism of Slavery, beginning in violence, can have

no legal or constitutional existence, unless through positive words

expressly authorizing it. As no such positive words are found in the

Constitution, all legislation by Congress supporting Slavery must be

unconstitutional and void, while it is made still further impossible by

positive words of prohibition guarding the liberty of every _person_

within the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress.

A court properly inspired, and ready to assume that just responsibility

which dignifies judicial tribunals, would at once declare Slavery

impossible at the national capital, and set every slave free,--as Lord

Mansfield declared Slavery impossible in England, and set every slave

free. The two cases are parallel; but, alas! the court is wanting

here. The legality of Slavery in England was affirmed in professional

opinions by the ablest lawyers; it was also affirmed on the bench.

England was a Slave State, and even its newspapers were disfigured with

advertisements for the sale of human beings, while the merchants of

London, backed by great names in the law, sustained the outrage. Then

appeared Granville Sharp, the philanthropist, who, pained by the sight

of Slavery, and especially shocked by the brutality of a slave-hunt in

the streets of London, was aroused to question its constitutionality

in England. For two years he devoted himself to anxious study of the

British Constitution in all its multifarious records. His conclusion

is expressed in these precise words: “The word _slaves_, or anything

that can justify the enslaving of others, is not to be found there,

God be thanked!”[238] Thus encouraged, he persevered. By his generous

exertions the negro Somerset, claimed as a slave by a Virginia

gentleman then in London, was defended, and the Court of King’s Bench

compelled to that immortal judgment by which Slavery was forever

expelled from England, and the early boast of the British Constitution

became a practical verity. More than fourteen thousand persons, held

as slaves on British soil--four times as many as are now found in the

national capital--became instantly free, without price or ransom.

The good work that our courts thus far decline remains to be done

by Congress. Slavery, which is a scandalous anomaly and anachronism

here, must be made to disappear from the national capital,--if not

in one way, then in another. A judgment of court would be simply on

the question of constitutional right, without regard to policy. But

there is no consideration of right or of policy, from the loftiest

principle to the humblest expediency, which may not properly enter into

the conclusion of Congress. The former might be the triumph of the

magistrate,--the latter must be that of the statesman. But whether from

magistrate or from statesman, it will constitute an epoch in history.

* * * * *

But the question is asked, Shall we vote money for this purpose? I

cannot hesitate. Two considerations are with me prevailing. First,

the relation of master and slave at the national capital has from the

beginning been established and maintained by Congress everywhere in

sight, and even directly under its own eyes. The master held the slave;

but Congress, with strong arm, stood behind the master, looking on and

sustaining. Not a dollar of wages has been taken, not a child stolen,

not a wife torn from her husband, without the hand of Congress. If

not partnership, there is complicity on the part of Congress, through

which the whole country has become responsible for the manifold

wrong. Though always protesting against its continuance, and laboring

earnestly for its removal, yet gladly do I accept my share of the

prospective burden. And, secondly, even if not all involved in the

manifold wrong, nothing is clearer than that the mode proposed is the

gentlest, quietest, and surest in which the beneficent change can be

accomplished. It is therefore the most practical. It recognizes Slavery

as an existing fact, and provides for its removal. And when I think of

the unquestionable good we seek, of all its great advantages, of the

national capital redeemed, of the national character elevated, and of

the righteous example we shall set, and when I think, still further,

that, according to a rule alike of jurisprudence and morals, _Liberty

is priceless_, I cannot hesitate at any appropriation within our

means by which all these things of incalculable value can be promptly

secured.

As I find no reason of policy adverse to such appropriation, so

do I find no objection in the Constitution. I am aware that it is

sometimes asked, Where in the Constitution is the power to make such

appropriation? But nothing is clearer than that, under the words

conferring “exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever,” Congress

may create freemen, although it may not create slaves. And of course

it may exercise all the powers necessary to this end, whether by a

simple act of emancipation or a vote of money. If there could be any

doubt on this point, it would be removed, when we reflect that the

abolition of Slavery, with all the natural incidents of such an act,

has been constantly recognized as within the sphere of legislation. It

was so regarded by Washington, who, in a generous letter to Lafayette,

dated May 10, 1786, said: “It certainly might and assuredly ought to

be effected, and that, too, by _legislative_ authority.”[239] Through

legislative authority Slavery has been abolished in State after State

of our Union, and also in foreign countries. I have yet to learn that

the power of Congress for this purpose at the national capital is

less complete than that of any other legislative body within its own

jurisdiction.

* * * * *

But, while not doubting the power of Congress in any of its incidents,

I prefer to consider the money we pay as in the nature of _ransom_

rather than _compensation_, so that Freedom shall be _acquired_ rather

than _purchased_; and I place it at once under the sanction of that

commanding charity proclaimed by prophets and enjoined by apostles,

which all history recognizes and the Constitution cannot impair.

From time immemorial every Government has undertaken to ransom from

captivity, and sometimes a whole people has felt the general resources

well bestowed in the ransom of its prince. Religion and humanity have

both concurred in this duty as more than usually sacred. “The ransom

of captives is a great and excellent office of justice,” exclaims one

of the early Fathers. And the pious St. Ambrose insisted upon breaking

up even the sacred vessels of the Church, saying: “The ornament of the

sacraments is the redemption of captives.”

Among the most beautiful incidents of the early Church is that of St.

Ambrose. There had been hesitation, but the divine Emancipationist

broke forth: “What! you will not sell the vessels of gold, and you

leave for sale the living vessels of the Lord! The ornament of the

sacraments is the redemption of captives. Let the cup ransom from the

enemy him whom the blood ransoms from sin.”[240] Happily, this spirit

prevailed. At the report of Christians compelled to wear out their

days as captives in Algiers, Tunis, or Morocco, or, it might be, among

the Moors of Spain or the merchants of Genoa and Venice, it assumed

practical form. Two Frenchmen, Jean de Matha and Pierre Nolasque, born

on the coast of the Mediterranean, conceived the idea of a special

order vowed to the redemption of Christian slaves. The first founded,

in 1199, the order of the Holy Trinity, known often as Mathurins; the

second, acting under the patronage of Spain, founded the order of

Our Lady of Mercy. Upon both these orders Bishops and Popes bestowed

approbation and encouragement, while, for more than six centuries, they

devoted themselves to this Christian charity, often, according to the

vow assumed, giving themselves as hostages for the ransomed captive. It

is related, that, in 1655, the Order of Mercy in Algiers alone ransomed

more than twelve thousand slaves, leaving in pledge a large number of

its members, faithful to the vow, “_In Saracenorum potestate in pignus,

si necesse fuerit ad redemptionem Christi fidelium, detentus manebo_.”

Thus did these pious fathers give not only money, but themselves.[241]

The duty thus commended has been exercised by the United States under

important circumstances, with the coöperation of the best names of

our history, so as to be beyond question. The instance may not be

familiar, but it is decisive, while, from beginning to end, it is full

of instruction.

Who has not heard of the Barbary States, and of the pretension put

forth by them to enslave white Christians? Algiers was the chief seat

of this enormity, which, through the insensibility or incapacity of

Christian States, was allowed to continue for generations. Good men

and great men were degraded to be captives, while many, neglected

by fortune, perished in barbarous Slavery. Even in our colonial

days, there were Americans whose fate, while in the hands of these

slave-masters, excited general sympathy. Only by ransom was their

freedom obtained. Perhaps no condition was more calculated to arouse

indignant rage. And yet the disposition so common to palliate Slavery

in the National Capital showed itself with regard to Slavery in

Algiers; and, indeed, the same arguments to soften public opinion have

been employed in the two instances. The parallel is so complete, that I

require all your trust to believe that what I read is not an apology

for Slavery here. Thus, a member of a diplomatic mission from England,

who visited Morocco in 1785, says of the Slavery which he saw: “It is

very slightly inflicted”; and “as to any labor undergone, it does not

deserve the name.”[242] And another earlier traveller, after describing

the comfortable condition of the white slaves, adds, in words to which

we are accustomed: “I am sure we saw several captives who lived much

better in Barbary than ever they did in their own country.… Whatever

money in charity was ever sent them by their friends in Europe was

their own.… And yet this is called insupportable slavery among Turks

and Moors! But we found this, as well as many other things in this

country, strangely misrepresented.”[243] A more recent French writer

asserts, with a vehemence to which we are habituated from the partisans

of Slavery among us, that the white slaves at Algiers were not exposed

to the miseries which they represented; that they were well clad and

well fed, _much better than the free Christians there_; that special

care was bestowed upon those who became ill; and that some were allowed

such privileges as to become indifferent to freedom, and even to prefer

Algiers to their own country.[244] Believe me, Sir, in stating these

things I simply follow history; and I refer to the volume and page or

chapter of the authorities which I quote, that the careful inquirer may

see that they relate to Slavery abroad, and not to Slavery at home.

If I continue to unfold this strange, eventful story, it will be to

exhibit _the direct and constant intervention of Congress for the

ransom of slaves_; but the story itself is an argument against Slavery,

pertinent to the present occasion, which I am not unwilling to adopt.

Scarcely was national independence established, when we were aroused

to fresh efforts for the protection of enslaved citizens. Within

three years no less than ten American vessels were seized. At one

time an apprehension prevailed that Dr. Franklin, on his way home

from France, had been captured. “We are waiting,” said one of his

French correspondents, “with the greatest impatience to hear from you.

The newspapers have given us anxiety on your account, for some of

them insist that you have been taken by the Algerines, while others

pretend that you are at Morocco, enduring your slavery with all the

patience of a philosopher.”[245] Though this apprehension happily

proved without foundation, it soon became known that other Americans,

less distinguished, but entitled to all the privileges of new-born

citizenship, were suffering in cruel captivity. At once the sentiments

of the people were enlisted in their behalf. Newspapers pleaded,

while the corsairs were denounced sometimes as “infernal crews,”

and sometimes as “human harpies.” But it was through the stories of

victims who had succeeded in escaping from bondage that the people

were most aroused. As these fugitive slaves touched our shores, they

were welcomed with outspoken sympathy. Glimpses opened through them

into the dread regions of Slavery gave a harrowing reality to all that

conjecture or imagination had pictured. True, indeed, it was that

our own white brethren, entitled like ourselves to all the rights of

manhood, were degraded in unquestioning obedience to an arbitrary

taskmaster, sold at the auction-block, worked like beasts of the field,

and galled by the manacle and lash. As the national power seemed yet

inadequate to compel their liberation, it was attempted by ransom.

Generous efforts at Algiers were organized under the direction of our

minister at Paris, and the famous _Society of Redemption_, having its

origin in the thirteenth century, offered aid. Our agents were blandly

entertained by the great slave-dealer, the Dey, who informed them that

he was familiar with the exploits of Washington, and, as he never

expected to set eyes on this hero of Freedom, expressed a hope, that,

through Congress, he might receive a full-length portrait of him, to

be displayed in the palace at Algiers. Amidst such professions the Dey

still clung to his American slaves, holding them at prices beyond the

means of the agents, who were not authorized to exceed two hundred

dollars a head,--being not unlike in amount that proposed in the

present bill; and I beg to call the attention of the Senator from Maine

[Mr. MORRILL], who has the bill in charge, to the parallel.

Their redemption engaged the attention of the National Government early

after the adoption of the Constitution. It was first brought before

Congress by petition, of which we find the following record.

“_Friday, May 14, 1790._--A petition from sundry citizens

of the United States, captured by the Algerines, and now

in slavery there, was presented, praying the interposition

of Congress in their behalf. Referred to the Secretary of

State.”[246]

An interesting report on the situation of these captives was made to

the President by the Secretary of State, December 28, 1790, where he

sets forth the efforts for their redemption at such prices as would

not “raise the market,”--it being regarded as important, that, in “the

first instance of a redemption by the United States, our price should

be fixed at the lowest point.”[247] I quote the precise words of this

document, which will be found in the State Papers of the country, and I

call special attention to them as applicable to the present moment. Our

price should be fixed at the lowest point, and we should do nothing to

raise the market. The parallel becomes more complete, when it is known

that the white slaves at Algiers were about the same in number with the

black slaves at Washington whose redemption is now proposed. The report

of Mr. Jefferson was laid before Congress, with the following brief

message from the President.

“UNITED STATES, December 30, 1790.

“_Gentlemen of the Senate and House of Representatives_:--

“I lay before you a report of the Secretary of State on the

subject of the citizens of the United States in captivity at

Algiers, that you may provide on their behalf what to you shall

seem most expedient.

“GEO. WASHINGTON.”[248]

It does not appear that there was question in any quarter with regard

to the power of Congress. The broad recommendation of the President was

to provide on behalf of the slaves what should seem most expedient.

Another report from the Secretary of State, entitled “Mediterranean

Trade,” and communicated to Congress December 30, 1790, relates chiefly

to the same matter. In this document are different estimates with

regard to the price at which our fellow-citizens might be ransomed and

peace purchased. One person, who had long resided at Algiers, put the

price at sixty or seventy thousand pounds sterling: this was the lowest

estimate. Another, also long, and still, a resident there, said that it

could not be less than a million dollars,--which is the sum proposed in

the present bill. Mr. Jefferson, after considering the subject at some

length, concludes as follows.

“Upon the whole, it rests with Congress to decide between war,

tribute, and ransom.… If war, they will consider how far our

own resources shall be called forth.… If tribute or ransom, it

will rest with them to limit and provide the amount, and with

the Executive, observing the same constitutional forms, to make

arrangements for employing it to the best advantage.”[249]

Among the papers accompanying the report is a letter from Mr. Adams,

minister at London, from which I take important words.

“It may be reasonably concluded that this great affair cannot

be finished for much less than two hundred thousand pounds

sterling.”[250]

This is the very sum now needed for our great affair.

In pursuance of these communications, the Senate tendered its advice to

the President in a resolution.

“_Resolved_, That the Senate advise and consent that the

President of the United States take such measures as he may

think necessary for the redemption of the citizens of the

United States now in captivity at Algiers: _Provided_, The

expense shall not exceed forty thousand dollars; and also that

measures be taken to confirm the treaty now existing between

the United States and the Emperor of Morocco.”[251]