Carolina ceded to the Federal Government the country now constituting the
State of Tennessee; and, a few years later, Georgia ceded that which
now constitutes the States of Mississippi and Alabama. In both deeds of
cession it was made a condition by the ceding States that the Federal
Government should not prohibit slavery in the ceded country. Besides this,
slavery was then actually in the ceded country. Under these circumstances,
Congress, on taking charge of these countries, did not absolutely prohibit
slavery within them. But they did interfere with it--take control of
it--even there, to a certain extent. In 1798, Congress organized the
Territory of Mississippi: In the act of organization they prohibited the
bringing of slaves into the Territory from any place without the United
States, by fine and giving freedom to slaves so brought. This act passed
both branches of Congress without yeas and nays. In that Congress were
three of the "thirty-nine" who framed the original Constitution. They were
John Langdon, George Read, and Abraham Baldwin. They all, probably, voted
for it. Certainly they would have placed their opposition to it upon
record, if, in their understanding, any line dividing local from Federal
authority, or anything in the Constitution, properly forbade the Federal
Government to control as to slavery in Federal territory.
In 1803, the Federal Government purchased the Louisiana country. Our
former territorial acquisitions came from certain of our own States;
but this Louisiana country was acquired from a foreign nation. In 1804,
Congress gave a territorial organization to that part of it which now
constitutes the State of Lousiana. New Orleans, lying within that part,
was an old and comparatively large city. There were other considerable
towns and settlements, and slavery was extensively and thoroughly
intermingled with the people. Congress did not, in the Territorial Act,
prohibit slavery; but they did interfere with it take control of it--in
a more marked and extensive way than they did in the case of Mississippi.
The substance of the provision therein made in relation to slaves was:
First. That no slave should be imported into the Territory from foreign
parts.
Second. That no slave should be carried into it who had been imported into
the United States since the first day of May, 1798.
Third. That no slave should be carried into it except by the owner, and
for his own use as a settler; the penalty in all the cases being a fine
upon the violator of the law, and freedom to the slave.
This act also was passed without yeas and nays. In the Congress which
passed it there were two of the "thirty-nine." They were Abraham Baldwin
and Jonathan Dayton. As stated in the case of Mississippi, it is probable
they both voted for it. They would not have allowed it to pass without
recording their opposition to it, if, in their understanding, it violated
either the line properly dividing local from Federal authority, or any
provision of the Constitution.
In 1819-20 came and passed the Missouri question. Many votes were taken,
by yeas and nays, in both branches of Congress, upon the various phases
of the general question. Two of the "thirty-nine"--Rufus King and Charles
Pinckney were members of that Congress. Mr. King steadily voted for
slavery prohibition and against all compromises, while Mr. Pinckney as
steadily voted against slavery prohibition, and against all compromises.
By this, Mr. King showed that, in his understanding, no line dividing
local from Federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, was
violated by Congress prohibiting slavery in Federal territory; while Mr.
Pinckney, by his vote, showed that in his understanding there was some
sufficient reason for opposing such prohibition in that case.
The cases I have mentioned are the only acts of the "thirty-nine," or of
any of them, upon the direct issue, which I have been able to discover.
To enumerate the persons who thus acted, as being four in 1784, two
in 1787, seventeen in 1789, three in 1798, two in 1804, and two in
1819-20--there would be thirty of them. But this would be counting, John
Langdon, Roger Sherman, William Few, Rufus King, and George Read, each
twice, and Abraham Baldwin three times. The true number of those of the
"thirty-nine" whom I have shown to have acted upon the question which, by
the text, they understood better than we, is twenty-three, leaving sixteen
not shown to have acted upon it in any way.
Here, then, we have twenty-three out of our thirty-nine fathers "who
framed the Government under which we live," who have, upon their official
responsibility and their corporal oaths, acted upon the very question
which the text affirms they "understood just as well, and even better
than we do now"; and twenty-one of them--a clear majority of the whole
"thirty-nine"--so acting upon it as to make them guilty of gross political
impropriety and wilful perjury, if, in their understanding, any proper
division between local and Federal authority, or anything in the
Constitution they had made themselves, and sworn to support, forbade the
Federal Government to control as to slavery in the Federal Territories.
Thus the twenty-one acted; and, as actions speak louder than words, so
actions under such responsibilities speak still louder.
Two of the twenty-three voted against Congressional prohibition of slavery
in the Federal Territories, in the instances in which they acted upon the
question. But for what reasons they so voted is not known. They may have
done so because they thought a proper division of local from Federal
authority, or some provision or principle of the Constitution, stood in
the way; or they may, without any such question, have voted against
the prohibition on what appeared to them to be sufficient grounds
of expediency. No one who has sworn to support the Constitution can
conscientiously vote for what he understands to be an unconstitutional
measure, however expedient he may think it; but one may and ought to vote
against a measure which he deems constitutional, if, at the same time, he
deems it inexpedient. It therefore would be unsafe to set down even the
two who voted against the prohibition as having done so because, in their
understanding, any proper division of local from Federal authority, or
anything in the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as
to slavery in Federal territory.
The remaining sixteen of the "thirty-nine," so far as I have discovered,
have left no record of their understanding upon the direct question of
Federal control on slavery in the Federal Territories. But there is much
reason to believe that their understanding upon that question would not
have appeared different from that of their twenty-three compeers, had it
been manifested at all.
For the purpose of adhering rigidly to the text, I have purposely omitted
whatever understanding may have been manifested by any person, however
distinguished, other than the thirty-nine fathers who framed the original
Constitution; and, for the same reason, I have also omitted whatever
understanding may have been manifested by any of the "thirty tine" even on
any other phase of the general question of slavery. If we should look into
their acts and declarations on those other phases, as the foreign slave
trade, and the morality and policy of slavery generally, it would appear
to us that on the direct question of Federal control of slavery in Federal
Territories, the sixteen, if they had acted at all, would probably have
acted just as the twenty-three did. Among that sixteen were several of
the most noted anti-slavery men of those times--as Dr. Franklin, Alexander
Hamilton, and Gouverneur Morris while there was not one now known to have
been otherwise, unless it may be John Rutledge, of South Carolina.
The sum of the whole is, that of our thirty-nine fathers who framed
the original Constitution, twenty-one--a clear majority of the
whole--certainly understood that no proper division of local from
Federal authority, nor any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal
Government to control slavery in the Federal Territories; whilst all the
rest probably had the same understanding. Such, unquestionably, was the
understanding of our fathers who framed the original Constitution; and the
text affirms that they understood the question "better than we."
But, so far, I have been considering the understanding of the question
manifested by the framers of the original Constitution. In and by the
original instrument, a mode was provided for amending it; and, as I have
already stated, the present frame of "the Government under which we live"
consists of that original, and twelve amendatory articles framed and
adopted since. Those who now insist that Federal control of slavery in
Federal Territories violates the Constitution, point us to the provisions
which they suppose it thus violates; and, as I understand, they all fix
upon provisions in these amendatory articles, and not in the original
instrument. The Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott case, plant themselves
upon the fifth amendment, which provides that no person shall be deprived
of "life, liberty, or property without due process of law"; while Senator
Douglas and his peculiar adherents plant themselves upon the tenth
amendment, providing that "the powers not delegated to the United States
by the Constitution" "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the
people."
Now, it so happens that these amendments were framed by the first Congress
which sat under the Constitution--the identical Congress which passed
the act already mentioned, enforcing the prohibition of slavery in the
Northwestern Territory. Not only was it the same Congress, but they were
the identical same individual men who, at the same session, and at the
same time within the session, had under consideration, and in progress
toward maturity, these Constitutional amendments, and this act prohibiting
slavery in all the territory the nation then owned. The Constitutional
amendments were introduced before and passed after the act enforcing the
Ordinance of '87; so that, during the whole pendency of the act to enforce
the Ordinance, the Constitutional amendments were also pending.
The seventy-six members of that Congress, including sixteen of the framers
of the original Constitution, as before stated, were pre-eminently our
fathers who framed that part of "the Government under which we live,"
which is now claimed as forbidding the Federal Government to control
slavery in the Federal Territories.
Is it not a little presumptuous in any one at this day to affirm that
the two things which that Congress deliberately framed, and carried to
maturity at the same time, are absolutely inconsistent with each other?
And does not such affirmation become impudently absurd when coupled with
the other affirmation from the same mouth, that those who did the two
things alleged to be inconsistent understood whether they really were
inconsistent better than we--better than he who affirms that they are
inconsistent?
It is surely safe to assume that the thirty-nine framers of the original
Constitution, and the seventy-six members of the Congress which framed the
amendments thereto, taken together, do certainly include those who may be
fairly called "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live."
And, so assuming, I defy any man to show that any one of them ever, in his
whole life, declared that, in his understanding, any proper division of
local from Federal authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbade the
Federal Government to control as to slavery in the Federal Territories. I
go a step further. I defy any one to show that any living man in the
world ever did, prior to the beginning of the present century (and I
might almost say prior to the beginning of the last half of the present
century), declare that, in his understanding, any proper division of
local from Federal authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbade the
Federal Government to control as to slavery in the Federal Territories.
To those who now so declare, I give not only "our fathers who framed the
Government under which we live," but with them all other living men within
the century in which it was framed, among whom to search, and they shall
not be able to find the evidence of a single man agreeing with them.
Now and here let me guard a little against being misunderstood. I do not
mean to say we are bound to follow implicitly in whatever our fathers
did. To do so would be to discard all the lights of current experience to
reject all progress, all improvement. What I do say is that, if we would
supplant the opinions and policy of our fathers in any case, we should
do so upon evidence so conclusive, and argument so clear, that even their
great authority, fairly considered and weighed, cannot stand; and most
surely not in a case whereof we ourselves declare they understood the
question better than we.
If any man at this day sincerely believes that proper division of local
from Federal authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbids the
Federal Government to control as to slavery in the Federal Territories, he
is right to say so, and to enforce his position by all truthful evidence
and fair argument which he can. But he has no right to mislead others who
have less access to history, and less leisure to study it, into the false
belief that "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live"
were of the same opinion thus substituting falsehood and deception for
truthful evidence and fair argument. If any man at this day sincerely
believes "our fathers, who framed the Government under which we live,"
used and applied principles, in other cases, which ought to have led them
to understand that a proper division of local from Federal authority, or
some part of the Constitution, forbids the Federal Government to control
as to slavery in the Federal Territories, he is right to say so. But he
should, at the same time, brave the responsibility of declaring that,
in his opinion, he understands their principles better than they did
themselves; and especially should he not shirk that responsibility by
asserting that they "understood the question just as well, and even better
than we do now."
But enough! Let all who believe that "our fathers, who framed the
Government under which we live, understood this question just as well, and
even better than we do now," speak as they spoke, and act as they acted
upon it. This is all Republicans ask--all Republicans desire--in relation
to slavery. As those fathers marked it, so let it be again marked, as an
evil not to be extended, but to be tolerated and protected only because
of, and so far as, its actual presence among us makes that toleration and
protection a necessity. Let all the guaranties those fathers gave it be
not grudgingly, but fully and fairly maintained. For this Republicans
contend, and with this, so far as I know or believe, they will be content.
And now, if they would listen--as I suppose they will not--I would address
a few words to the Southern people.
I would say to them: You consider yourselves a reasonable and a just
people; and I consider that in the general qualities of reason and justice
you are not inferior to any other people. Still, when you speak of us
Republicans, you do so only to denounce us as reptiles, or, at the
best, as no better than outlaws. You will grant a hearing to pirates
or murderers, but nothing like it to "Black Republicans." In all
your contentions with one another, each of you deems an unconditional
condemnation of "Black Republicanism" as the first thing to be attended
to. Indeed, such condemnation of us seems to be an indispensable
prerequisite license, so to speak among you, to be admitted or permitted
to speak at all: Now; can you, or not, be prevailed upon to pause, and to
consider whether this is quite just to us, or even to yourselves? Bring
forward your charges and specifications, and then be patient long enough
to hear us deny or justify.
You say we are sectional. We deny it. That makes an issue; and the burden
of proof is upon you. You produce your proof; and what is it? Why, that
our party has no existence in your section--gets no votes in your section.
The fact is substantially true; but does it prove the issue? If it does,
then in case we should, without change of principle, begin to get votes in
your section, we should thereby cease to be sectional. You cannot escape
this conclusion; and yet, are you willing to abide by it? If you are, you
will probably soon find that we have ceased to be sectional, for we shall
get votes in your section this very year. You will then begin to discover,
as the truth plainly is, that your proof, does not touch the issue. The
fact that we get no votes in your section is a fact of your making, and
not of ours. And if there be fault in that fact, that fault is primarily
yours, and remains so until you show that we repel you by, some wrong
principle or practice. If we do repel you by any wrong principle or
practice, the fault is ours; but this brings you to where you ought to
have started to a discussion of the right or wrong of our principle. If
our principle, put in practice, would wrong your section for the benefit
of ours, or for any other object, then our principle, and we with it, are
sectional, and are justly opposed and denounced as such. Meet us, then, on
the question of whether our principle, put in practice, would wrong your
section; and so meet us as if it were possible that something may be said
on our side. Do you accept the challenge? No! Then you really believe that
the principle which "our fathers who framed the Government under which we
live" thought so clearly right as to adopt it, and indorse it again and
again, upon their official oaths, is in fact so clearly wrong as to demand
your condemnation without a moment's consideration.
Some of you delight to flaunt in our faces the warning against sectional
parties given by Washington in his Farewell Address. Less than eight years
before Washington gave that warning, he had, as President of the United
States, approved and signed an act of Congress enforcing the prohibition
of slavery in the Northwestern Territory, which act embodied the policy of
the Government upon that subject up to, and at, the very moment he penned
that warning; and about one year after he penned it, he wrote La Fayette
that he considered that prohibition a wise measure, expressing in the same
connection his hope that we should at some time have a confederacy of free
States.
Bearing this in mind, and seeing that sectionalism has since arisen upon
this same subject, is that warning a weapon in your hands against us, or
in our hands against you? Could Washington himself speak, would he cast
the blame of that sectionalism upon us, who sustain his policy, or upon
you, who repudiate it? We respect that warning of Washington, and we
commend it to you, together with his example pointing to the right
application of it.
But you say you are conservative--eminently conservative--while we
are revolutionary, destructive, or something, of the sort. What is
conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against a new and
untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point
in controversy which was adopted by "our fathers who framed the Government
under which we live"; while you with one accord reject, and scout, and
spit upon that old policy and insist upon substituting something new.
True, you disagree among yourselves as to what that substitute shall be.
You are divided on new propositions and plans, but you are unanimous in
rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the fathers. Some of you are
for reviving the foreign slave trade; some for a Congressional slave
code for the Territories; some for Congress forbidding the Territories to
prohibit slavery within their limits; some for maintaining slavery in the
Territories through the judiciary; some for the "gur-reat pur-rinciple"
that "if one man would enslave another, no third man should object,"
fantastically called "popular sovereignty"; but never a man among you in
favor of Federal prohibition of slavery in Federal Territories, according
to the practice of "our fathers who framed the Government under which
we live." Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an
advocate in the century within which our Government originated. Consider,
then, whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves, and your charge
of destructiveness against us, are based on the most clear and stable
foundations.
Again: You say we have made the slavery question more prominent than it
formerly was. We deny it. We admit that it is more prominent, but we deny
that we made it so. It was not we, but you, who discarded the old policy
of the fathers. We resisted and still resist your innovation; and thence
comes the greater prominence of the question. Would you have that question
reduced to its former proportions? Go back to that old policy. What has
been will be again, under the same conditions. If you would have the peace
of the old times, readopt the precepts and policy of the old times.
You charge that we stir up insurrections among your slaves. We deny it;
and what is your proof'? Harper's Ferry! John Brown!! John Brown was no
Republican; and you have failed to implicate a single Republican in his
Harper's Ferry enterprise. If any member of our party is guilty in that
matter you know it or you do not know it. If you do know it, you are
inexcusable for not designating the man and proving the fact. If you do
not know it, you are inexcusable for asserting it, and especially for
persisting in the assertion after you have tried and failed to make the
proof. You need not be told that persisting in a charge which one does not
know to be true is simply malicious slander.
Some of you admit that no Republican designedly aided or encouraged
the Harper's Ferry affair, but still insist that our doctrines and
declarations necessarily lead to such results. We do not believe it. We
know we hold to no doctrine, and make no declaration, which were not held
to and made by our fathers who framed the Government under which we live.
You never dealt fairly by us in relation to this affair. When it occurred,
some important State elections were near at hand, and you were in evident
glee with the belief that, by charging the blame upon us, you could get
an advantage of us in those elections. The elections came, and your
expectations were not quite fulfilled. Every Republican man knew that,
as to himself at least, your charge was a slander, and he was not much
inclined by it to cast his vote in your favor. Republican doctrines
and declarations are accompanied with a continued protest against any
interference whatever with your slaves, or with you about your slaves.
Surely, this does not encourage them to revolt. True, we do, in common
with "our fathers, who framed the Government under which we live," declare
our belief that slavery is wrong; but the slaves do not hear us declare
even this. For any thing we say or do, the slaves would scarcely know
there is a Republican party. I believe they would not, in fact, generally
know it but for your misrepresentations of us in their hearing. In your
political contests among yourselves, each faction charges the other with
sympathy with Black Republicanism; and then, to give point to the charge,
defines Black Republicanism to simply be insurrection, blood, and thunder
among the slaves.
Slave insurrections are no more common now than they were before the
Republican party was organized. What induced the Southampton insurrection,
twenty-eight years ago, in which, at least, three times as many lives
were lost as at Harper's Ferry? You can scarcely stretch your very
elastic fancy to the conclusion that Southampton was "got up by Black
Republicanism." In the present state of things in the United States, I
do not think a general or even a very extensive slave insurrection is
possible. The indispensable concert of action cannot be attained. The
slaves have no means of rapid communication; nor can incendiary freemen,
black or white, supply it. The explosive materials are everywhere in
parcels; but there neither are, nor can be supplied the indispensable
connecting trains.