JHT 
 
R U F U S KIN G- 
 
AMERICAN 9 
 ELOQUENCE 
 
 STUDIES IN AMERICAN 
 POLITICAL HISTORY 
 
 EDITED, WITH INTRODUCTIONS, BY 
 
 ALEXANDER JOHNSTON 
 
 Late Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Economy 
 in the College of New Jersey 
 
 RE-EDITED, WITH HISTORICAL AND 
 TEXTUAL NOTES, BY 
 
 JAMES ALBERT WOODBURN 
 
 Professor of American History and Politics 
 in Indiana University 
 
 VOLUME II. 
 
 New York and London 
 
 G. P. Putnam's Sons 
 
 Subscription Department 
 
COPYRIGHT, 1896 
 
 BY 
 G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS 
 
 "Cbc fmfcfeerbochcr press, mew IRocbeHe, VI. . 
 
173 
 
 J"73 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 INTRODUCTION TO THE REVISED VOLUME . . . ix 
 
 V. THE ANTI-SLA VERY STRUGGLE. 
 THE ANTI-SLAVERY STRUGGLE ..... 3 
 
 RUFUS KING 33 
 
 ON THE MISSOURI STRUGGLE UNITED STATES SENATE, 
 FEBRUARY n AND 14, 1820. 
 
 WILLIAM PINKNEY 63 
 
 ON THE MISSOURI STRUGGLE UNITED STATES SENATE, 
 FEBRUARY 15, 1820. 
 
 WENDELL PHILLIPS 102 
 
 ON THE MURDER OF LOVEJOY FANEUIL HALL, BOSTON, 
 DECEMBER 8, 1837. 
 
 JOHN QUINCY ADAMS "5 
 
 ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL WAR POWER OVER SLAVERY- 
 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MAY 25, 1836. 
 
 JOHN C. CALHOUN 123 
 
 ON THE SLAVERY QUESTION UNITED STATES SENATE, MARCH 
 4, 1850. 
 
 DANIEL WEBSTER l61 
 
 ON THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION UNITED STATES 
 SENATE, MARCH 7, 1850. 
 
 HENRY CLAY 2O2 
 
 ON THK COMPROMISE OF 1850 UNITED STATES SENATE, 
 
 JULY 22, 1850. 
 VOL. ii. iii 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 WENDELL PHILLIPS 219 
 
 ON THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE ABOLITION MOVEMENTBEFORE 
 THE MASSACHUSETTS, ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY, BOSTON, 
 JANUARY 27, 1853. 
 
 CHARLES SUMNER 268 
 
 ON THB REPEAL OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW UNITED 
 STATES SENATE, AUGUST 26, 1852. 
 
 APPENDIX, NOTES 343 
 
LIST OF PORTRAITS. 
 
 VOL. I. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 ALEXANDER HAMILTON . Frontispiece 
 
 From a painting by COL. J. TRUMBULL. 
 
 PATRICK HENRY ... .18 
 
 From a painting by JAMES B. LONGACRE. 
 
 SAMUEL ADAMS . 2 4 
 
 From a steel engraving. 
 
 JAMES MADISON . -54 
 
 From a painting by GILBERT STUART. 
 
 FISHER AMES II2 
 
 From a painting by GILBERT STUART. 
 
 THOMAS JEFFERSON . . ! 5 6 
 
 From a painting by GILBERT STUART. 
 
 JOHN RANDOLPH ... .164 
 
VI 
 
 LIST OF PORTRAITS. 
 
 VOL. II. 
 
 RUFUS KING . 
 
 From a steel engraving. 
 
 JOHN Q. ADAMS 
 
 From a painting by MARCHANT. 
 
 JOHN C. CALHOUN . 
 
 From a daguerreotype by BRADY. 
 
 DANIEL WEBSTER . 
 
 From a painting by R. M. STAIGG. 
 
 HENRY CLAY . 
 
 From a crayon portrait. 
 
 VOL. III. 
 
 Frontispiece 
 
 . 116 
 
 124 
 
 . 162 
 
 . 202 
 Frontispiece 
 
 WILLIAM H. SEWARD . 
 
 From a photograph. 
 
 SALMON P. CHASE 4 
 
 From a daguerreotype, engraved by F. E. JONES. 
 
 EDWARD EVERETT 32 
 
 From a painting by R. M. STAIGG. 
 
 STEPHEN A. DOUGLASS .... 50 
 
 From a steel engraving. 
 
 JEFFERSON DAVIS . 320 
 
 From a photograph. 
 
LIST OF PORTRAITS. VI 1 
 
 VOL. IV. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 GEORGE W. CURTIS . . Frontispiece 
 
 From a painting by SAMUEL LAWRENCE. 
 
 JOHN C. BRECKENRIDGE . . 52 
 
 P>om a photograph. 
 
 HENRY W. BEECHER . . 94 
 
 Wood-engraving from photograph. 
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN . 124 
 
 Wood-engraving from photograph. 
 
 JAMES G. ELAINE . 312 
 
 Wood-engraving from photograph. 
 
INTRODUCTION TO THE REVISED 
 VOLUME. 
 
 THE second volume of the American Elo- 
 quence is devoted exclusively to the Slavery 
 controversy. The new material of the revised 
 edition includes Rufus King and William 
 Pinkney on the Missouri Question ; John 
 Quincy Adams on the War Power of the 
 Constitution over Slavery ; Sumner on the 
 Repeal of the Fugitive Slave Law. The ad- 
 dition of the new material makes necessary 
 the reservation of the orations on the Kansas- 
 Nebraska Bill, and on the related subjects, for 
 the third volume. 
 
 In the anti-slavery struggle the Missouri 
 question occupied a prominent place. In the 
 voluminous Congressional material which the 
 long debates called forth, the speeches of King 
 
X IN TROD UC riON. 
 
 and Pinkney are the best representatives of the 
 two sides to the controversy, and they are 
 of historical interest and importance. John 
 Quincy Adams' leadership in the dramatic 
 struggle over the right of petition in the 
 House of Representatives, and his opinion on 
 the constitutional power of the national gov- 
 ernment over the institution of slavery within 
 the States, will always excite the attention of 
 the historical student. 
 
 In the decade before the war no subject was 
 a greater cause of irritation and antagonism 
 between the States than the Fugitive Slave 
 Law. Sumner's speech on this subject is the 
 most valuable of his speeches from the histori- 
 cal point of view ; and it is not only a worthy 
 American oration, but it is a valuable contri- 
 bution to the history of the slavery struggle 
 itself. It has been thought desirable to in- 
 clude in a volume of this character orations 
 of permanent value on these themes of historic 
 interest. A study of the speeches of a radical 
 innovator like Phillips with those of compro- 
 
IN TR OD UC TJON. xi 
 
 mising conservatives like Webster and Clay, 
 will lead the student into a comparison, or con- 
 trast, of these diverse characters. The volume 
 retains the two orations of Phillips, the two 
 greatest of all his contributions to the anti- 
 slavery struggle. It is believed that the list of 
 orations, on the whole, presents to the reader 
 a series of subjects of first importance in the 
 great slavery controversy. 
 
 The valuable introduction of Professor John- 
 ston, on " The Anti-Slavery Struggle," is re- 
 printed entire. Full historical notes are added 
 on the leading subjects of the Orations, with 
 brief sketches of their authors. These, with 
 the textual notes and references will, it is 
 hoped, make the volume a useful text and 
 guide to those who may wish to study this 
 important portion of our national history. 
 
 J. A. W. 
 
V. 
 THE ANTI-SLAVERY STRUGGLE. 
 
V. 
 
 THE ANTI-SLAVERY STRUGGLE. 
 
 NEGRO slavery was introduced into all the 
 English colonies of North America as a custom, 
 and not under any warrant of law. The en- 
 slavement of the negro race was simply a mat- 
 ter against which no white person chose to 
 enter a protest, or make resistance, while the 
 negroes themselves were powerless to resist or 
 even protest. In due course of time laws were 
 passed by the Colonial Assemblies to protect 
 property in negroes, while the home govern- 
 ment, to the very last, actively protected and 
 encouraged the slave trade to the colonies. 
 Negro slavery in all the colonies had thus 
 passed from custom to law before the American 
 Revolution broke out ; and the course of the 
 Revolution itself had little or no effect on the 
 system. 
 
4 THE ANTI-SLAVERY STRUGGLE. 
 
 From the beginning, it was evident that the 
 course of slavery in the two sections, North and 
 South, was to be altogether divergent. In the 
 colder North, the dominant race found it easier 
 to work than to compel negroes to work : in 
 the warmer South, the case was exactly re- 
 versed. At the close of the Revolution, Massa- 
 chusetts led the way in an abolition of slavery, 
 which was followed gradually by the other 
 States north of Virginia; and in 1787 the ordi- 
 nance of Congress organizing the Northwest 
 Territory made all the future States north of 
 the Ohio free States. " Mason and Dixon's 
 line " and the Ohio River thus seemed, in 1790, 
 to be the natural boundary between the free 
 and the slave States. 
 
 Up to this point the white race in the two 
 sections had dealt with slavery by methods 
 which were simply divergent, not antagonistic. 
 It was true that the percentage of slaves in the 
 total population had been very rapidly decreas- 
 ing in the North and not in the South, and that 
 the gradual abolition of slavery was proceeding 
 
THE ANTI-SLAVERY STRUGGLE. 5 
 
 in the North alone, and that with increasing 
 rapidity. But there was no positive evidence 
 that the South was bulwarked in favor of slav- 
 ery ; there was no certainty but that the South 
 would in its turn and in due time come to the 
 point which the North had already reached, 
 and begin its own abolition of slavery. The 
 language of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, 
 Henry, and Mason, in regard to the evils or the 
 wickedness of the system of slavery, was too 
 strong to be heard with patience in the South 
 of after years ; and in this section it seems to 
 have been true, that those who thought at all 
 upon the subject hoped sincerely for the grad- 
 ual abolition of slavery in the South. The 
 hope, indeed, was rather a sentiment than 
 a purpose, but there seems to have been no 
 good reason, before 1793, why the sentiment 
 should not finally develop into a purpose. 
 
 All this was permanently changed, and the 
 slavery policy of the South was made antagonis- 
 tic to, and not merely divergent from, that of 
 the North, by the invention of Whitney's saw 
 
6 THE ANTI-SLAVERY STRUGGLE. 
 
 gin for cleansing cotton in 1793. It had been 
 known, before that year, that cotton could be 
 cultivated in the South, but its cultivation was 
 made unprofitable, and checked by the labor 
 required to separate the seeds from the cotton. 
 Whitney's invention increased the efficiency of 
 this labor hundreds of times, and it became 
 evident at once that the South enjoyed a prac- 
 tical monopoly of the production of cotton. 
 The effect on the slavery policy of the South 
 was immediate and unhappy. Since 1865, it 
 has been found that the cotton monopoly of 
 the South is even more complete under a free 
 than under a slave labor system, but mere 
 theory could never have convinced the South- 
 ern people that such would be the case. Their 
 whole prosperity hinged on one product ; they 
 began its cultivation under slave labor ; and the 
 belief that labor and prosperity were equally 
 dependent on the enslavement of the laboring 
 race very soon made the dominant race active 
 defenders of slavery. From that time the sys- 
 tem in the South was one of slowly but steadily 
 
THE ANTI-SLAVERY STRUGGLE. J 
 
 increasing rigor, until, just before 1860, its last 
 development took the form of legal enactments 
 for the re-enslavement of free negroes, in de- 
 fault of their leaving the State in which they 
 resided. Parallel with this increase of rigor, 
 there was a steady change in the character of 
 the system. It tended very steadily to lose its 
 original patriarchal character, and take the 
 aspect of a purely commercial speculation. 
 After 1850, the commercial aspect began to be 
 the rule in the black belt of the Gulf States. 
 The plantation knew only the' overseer; so 
 many slaves died to so many bales of cotton ; 
 and the slave population began to lose all 
 human connection with the dominant race. 
 
 The acquisition of Louisiana in 1803 more 
 than doubled the area of the United States, 
 and far more than doubled the area of the slave 
 system. Slavery had been introduced into 
 Louisiana, as usual, by custom, and had then 
 been sanctioned by Spanish and French law. 
 It is true that Congress did not forbid slavery 
 in the new territory of Louisiana ; but Congress 
 
8 THE ANTI-SLAVERY STRUGGLE. 
 
 did even worse than this ; under the guise of 
 forbidding the importation of slaves into Louis- 
 iana, by the act of March 26, 1804, organizing 
 the territory, the phrase " except by a citizen 
 of the United States, removing into said terri- 
 tory for actual settlement, and being at the 
 time of such removal bona fide owner of such 
 slave or slaves, " impliedly legitimated the 
 domestic slave trade to Louisiana, and legalized 
 slavery wherever population should extend 
 between the Mississippi and the Rocky Moun- 
 tains. The Congress of 1803-05, which passed 
 the act, should rightfully bear the responsibility 
 for all the subsequent growth of slavery, and 
 for all the difficulties in which it involved the 
 South and the country. 
 
 There were but two centres of population in 
 Louisiana, New Orleans and St. Louis. When 
 the southern district, around New Orleans, ap- 
 plied for admission as the slave State of Louis- 
 iana, there seems to have been no surprise or 
 opposition on this score ; the Federalist oppo- 
 sition to the admission is exactly represented 
 
THE ANTI-SLAVERY STRUGGLE. 9 
 
 by Quincy's speech in the first volume. When 
 the northern district, around St. Louis, applied 
 for admission as the slave State of Missouri, 
 the inevitable consequences of the act of 1804 
 became evident for the first time, and all the 
 Northern States united to resist the admission. 
 The North controlled the House of Representa- 
 tives, and the South the Senate ; and, after a 
 severe parliamentary struggle, the two bodies 
 united in the compromise of 1820. By its 
 terms Missouri was admitted as a slave State, 
 and slavery was forever forbidden in the rest of 
 Louisiana Territory, north of latitude 36 30' 
 (the line of the southerly boundary of Missouri). 
 The instinct of this first struggle against slavery 
 extension seems to have been much the same 
 as that of 1846-60 the realization that a per- 
 mission to introduce slavery by custom into the 
 Territories meant the formation of slave States 
 exclusively, the restriction of the free States to 
 the district between the Mississippi and the At- 
 lantic, and the final conversion of the mass of 
 the United States to a policy of enslavement 
 
10 THE ANTI-SLAVERY STRUGGLE. 
 
 of labor. But, on the surface, it was so entirely 
 a struggle for the balance of power between 
 the two sections, that it has not seemed worth 
 while to introduce any of the few reported 
 speeches of the time. The topic is more fully 
 and fairly discussed in the subsequent debates 
 on the Kansas-Nebraska Act. 
 
 In 1830 William Lloyd Garrison, a Boston 
 printer, opened the real anti-slavery struggle. 
 Up to this time the anti-slavery sentiment, 
 North and South, had been content with the 
 notion of " gradual abolition," with the hope 
 that the South would, in some yet unsuspected 
 manner, be brought to the Northern policy. 
 This had been supplemented, to some extent, 
 by the colonization society for colonizing ne- 
 groes on the west coast of Africa, which had 
 two aspects: at the South it was the means 
 of ridding the country of the free negro popu- 
 lation ; at the North it was a means of mitigat- 
 ing, perhaps of gradually abolishing, slavery. 
 Garrison, through his newspaper, the Liberator, 
 called for " immediate abolition " of slavery. 
 
THE ANTI-SLAVERY STRUGGLE. II 
 
 for the conversion of anti-slavery sentiment 
 into anti-slavery purpose. This was followed 
 by the organization of his adherents into the 
 American Anti-Slavery Society in 1833, and the 
 active dissemination of the immediate abolition 
 principle by tracts, newspapers, and lecturers. 
 The anti-slavery struggle thus begun, never 
 ceased until, in 1865, the Liberator ceased to be 
 published, with the final abolition of slavery. 
 In its inception and in all its development the 
 movement was a distinct product of the dem- 
 ocratic spirit. It would not have been possible 
 in 1790, or in 1810, or in 1820. The man came 
 with the hour ; and every new mile of railroad or 
 telegraph, every new district open to population, 
 every new influence toward the growth of de- 
 mocracy, broadened the power as well as the field 
 of the abolition movement. It was but the 
 deepening, the application to an enslaved race 
 of laborers, of the work which Jeffersonian de- 
 mocracy had done, to remove the infinitely less 
 grievous restraints upon the white laborer thirty 
 year before. It could never have been begun 
 
12 THE ANTI-SLAVERY STRUGGLE. 
 
 until individualism at the North had advanced so 
 far that there was a reserve force of mind" ready 
 to reject all the influences of heredity and cus- 
 tom upon thought. Outside of religion there 
 was no force so strong at the North as the rev- 
 erence for the Constitution ; it was significant 
 of the growth of individualism, as well as of 
 the anti-slavery sentiment, that Garrison could 
 safely begin his work with the declaration that 
 the Constitution itself was " a league with death 
 and a covenant with hell." 
 
 The Garrisonian programme would undoubt- 
 edly have been considered highly objectionable 
 by the South, even under the comparatively 
 colorless slavery policy of 1790. Under the 
 conditions to which cotton culture had ad- 
 vanced in 1830, it seemed to the South nothing 
 less than a proposal to destroy, root and branch, 
 the whole industry of that section, and it was 
 received vvith corresponding indignation. Gar- 
 risonian abolitionists were taken and regarded 
 as public enemies, and rewards were even of- 
 fered for their capture. The germ of abolition- 
 
THE ANTI-SLAVERY STRUGGLE. 13 
 
 ism in the Border States found a new and ag- 
 gressive public sentiment arrayed against it ; 
 and an attempt to introduce gradual abolition 
 in Virginia in 1832-33 was hopelessly defeated. 
 The new question was even carried into Con- 
 gress. A bill to prohibit the transportation of 
 abolition documents by the Post-Office de- 
 partment was introduced, taken far enough to 
 put leading men of both parties on the record, 
 and then dropped. Petitions for the abolition 
 of slavery in the District of Columbia were met 
 by rules requiring the reference of such peti- 
 tions without reading or action ; but this only 
 increased the number of petitions, by providing 
 a new grievance to be petitioned against, and 
 in 1842 the " gag rule " was rescinded. Thence- 
 forth the pro-slavery members of Congress could 
 do nothing, and could only become more ex- 
 asperated under a system of passive resistance. 
 Even at the North, indifferent or politically 
 hostile as it had hitherto shown itself to the ex- 
 pansion of slavery, the new doctrines were re- 
 ceived with an outburst of anger which seems 
 
14 THE ANTI-SLAVERY STRUGGLE. 
 
 to have been primarily a revulsion against their 
 unheard of individualism. If nothing, which 
 had been the object of unquestioning popular 
 reverence, from the Constitution down or up to 
 the church organizations, was to be sacred 
 against the criticism of the Garrisonians, it was 
 certain that the innovators must submit for a 
 time to a general proscription. Thus the Gar- 
 risonians were ostracised socially, and became 
 the Ishmaelites of politics. Their meetings 
 were broken up by mobs, their halls were des- 
 troyed, their schools were attacked by all the 
 machinery of society and legislation, their print- 
 ing presses were silenced by force or fraud, and 
 their lecturers came to feel that they had not 
 done their work with efficiency if a meeting 
 passed without the throwing of stones or eggs 
 at the building or the orators. It was, of course, 
 inevitable that such a process should bring 
 strong minds to the aid of the Garrisonians, at 
 first from sympathy with persecuted individual- 
 ism, and finally from sympathy with the cause 
 itself ; and in this way Garrisonianism was in a 
 
THE ANTI-SLAVERY STRUGGLE. 15 
 
 great measure relieved from open mob violence 
 about 1840, though it never escaped it alto- 
 gether until abolition meetings ceased to be nec- 
 essary. One of the first and greatest reinforce- 
 ments was the appearance of Wendell Phillips, 
 whose speech at Faneuil Hall in 1837 was one 
 of the first tokens of a serious break in the 
 hitherto almost unanimous public opinion 
 against Garrisonianism. Lovejoy, a Western 
 anti-slavery preacher and editor, who had been 
 driven from one place to another in Missouri 
 and Illinois, had finally settled at Alton, and 
 was there shot to death while defending his 
 printing press against a mob. At a public 
 meeting in Faneuil Hall, the Attorney-General 
 of Massachusetts, James T. Austin, expressing 
 what was doubtless the general sentiment of 
 the time as to such individual insurrection 
 against pronounced public opinion, compared 
 the Alton mob to the Boston " tea-party," and 
 declared that Lovejoy, " presumptuous and im- 
 prudent," had " died as the fool dieth." Phil- 
 lips, an almost unknown man, took the stand, 
 
1 6 THE ANTI-SLAVERY STRUGGLE. 
 
 and answered in the speech which opens this 
 volume. A more powerful reinforcement could 
 hardly have been looked for ; the cause which 
 could find such a defender was henceforth to be 
 feared rather than despised. To the day of his 
 death he was, fully as much as Garrison, the in- 
 carnation of the anti-slavery spirit. For this 
 reason his address on the Philosophy of the 
 Abolition Movement, in 1853, has been assigned 
 a place as representing fully the abolition side 
 of the question, just before it was overshadowed 
 by the rise of the Republican party, which op- 
 posed only the extension of slavery to the 
 territories. 
 
 The history of the sudden development of the 
 anti-slavery struggle in 1845 an< ^ tne following 
 years, is largely given in the speeches which have 
 been selected to illustrate it. The admission of 
 Texas to the Union in 1845, and the war with 
 Mexico which followed it, resulted in the ac- 
 quisition of a vast amount of new territory by 
 the United States. From the first suggestion 
 of such an acquisition, the Wilmot proviso (so- 
 
THE ANTI-SLAVERY STRUGGLE. \*J 
 
 called from David Wilmot, of Pennsylvania, who 
 introduced it in Congress), that slavery should 
 be prohibited in the new territory, was persist- 
 ently offered as an amendment to every bill 
 appropriating money for the purchase of terri- 
 tory from Mexico. It was passed by the House 
 of Representatives, but was balked in the 
 Senate ; and the purchase was finally made 
 without any proviso. When the territory came 
 to be organized, the old question came up 
 again : the Wilmot proviso was offered as an 
 amendment. As the territory was now in the 
 possession of the United States, and as it had 
 been acquired in a war whose support had been 
 much more cordial at the South than at the 
 North, the attempt to add the Wilmot proviso 
 to the territorial organization raised the South- 
 ern opposition to an intensity which it had not 
 known before. Fuel was added to the flame 
 by the application of California, whose popula- 
 tion had been enormously increased by the dis- 
 covery of gold within her limits, for admission 
 as a free State. If New Mexico should do the 
 
1 8 THE ANTI-SLAVERY STRUGGLE. 
 
 same, as was probable, the Wilmot proviso 
 would be practically in force throughout the best 
 portion of the Mexican acquisition. The two 
 sections were now so strong and so determined 
 that compromise of any kind was far more diffi- 
 cult than in 1820 ; and it was not easy to recon- 
 cile or compromise the southern demand that 
 slavery should be permitted, and the northern 
 demand that slavery should be forbidden, to 
 enter the new territories. 
 
 In the meantime, the Presidential election of 
 1848 had come and gone. It had been marked 
 by the appearance of a new party, the Free 
 Soilers, an event which was at first extremely 
 embarrassing to the managers of both the 
 Democratic and Whig parties. On the one 
 hand, the northern and southern sections of the 
 Whig party had always been very loosely 
 joined together, and the slender tie was en- 
 dangered by the least admission of the slavery 
 issue. On the other hand, while the Democra- 
 tic national organization had always been more 
 perfect, its northern section had always been 
 
THE ANTI-SLAVERY STRUGGLE. ig 
 
 much more inclined to active anti-slavery work 
 than the northern Whigs. Its organ, the Dem- 
 ocratic Review, habitually spoke of the slaves as 
 " our black brethren " ; and a long catalogue 
 could be made of leaders like Chase, Hale, Wil- 
 mot, Bryant, and Leggett, whose democracy 
 was broad enough to include the negro. To 
 both parties, therefore, the situation was ex- 
 tremely hazardous. The Whigs had less to 
 fear, but were able to resist less pressure. 
 The Democrats were more united, but were 
 called upon to meet a greater danger. In the 
 end, the Whigs did nothing ; their two sections 
 drew further apart ; and the Presidential elec- 
 tion of 1852 only made it evident that the na- 
 tional Whig party was no longer in existence. 
 The Democratic managers evolved, as a solu- 
 tion of their problem, the new doctrine of 
 " popular sovereignty/' which Calhoun re- 
 baptized " squatter sovereignty." They as- 
 serted as the true Democratic doctrine, that 
 the question of slavery or freedom was to be 
 left for decision of the people of the territory 
 
20 THE ANTI-SLAVERY STRUGGLE. 
 
 itself. To the mass of northern Democrats, 
 this doctrine was taking enough to cover over 
 the essential nature of the struggle ; the more 
 democratic leaders of the northern Democracy 
 were driven off into the Free-Soil party ; and 
 Douglas, the champion of "popular sov- 
 ereignty," became the leading Democrat of 
 the North. 
 
 Clay had re-entered the Senate in 1849, f r 
 the purpose of compromising the sectional diffi- 
 culties as he had compromised those of 1820 
 and of 1833. His speech, as given, will show 
 something of his motives ; his success resulted 
 in the "compromise of 1850." By its terms, 
 California was admitted as a free State ; the 
 slave trade, but not slavery, was prohibited in 
 the District of Columbia ; a more stringent 
 fugitive slave law was enacted ; Texas was paid 
 $10,000,000 for certain claims to the Territory 
 of New Mexico ; and the Territories of Utah 
 and New Mexico, covering the Mexican ac- 
 quisition outside of California, were organized 
 without mentioning slavery. The last-named 
 
THE ANTI-SLAVERY STRUGGLE. 21 
 
 feature was carefully designed to please all im- 
 portant factions. It could be represented to 
 the Webster Whigs that slavery was excluded 
 from the Territories named by the operation of 
 natural laws ; to the Clay Whigs that slavery 
 had already been excluded by Mexican law 
 which survived the cession; to the northern 
 Democrats, that the compromise was a formal 
 endorsement of the great principle of popular 
 sovereignty ; and to the southern Democrats 
 that it was a repudiation of the Wilmot proviso. 
 In the end, the essence of the success went to 
 the last-named party, for the legislatures of 
 the two territories established slavery, and no 
 bill to veto their action could pass both Houses 
 of Congress until after 1861. 
 
 The Supreme Court had already decided that 
 Congress had exclusive power to enforce the 
 fugitive slave clause of the Constitution, though 
 the fugitive slave law of 1 793 had given a con- 
 current authority of execution to State officers. 
 The law of 1850, carrying the Supreme Court's 
 decision further, gave the execution of the law 
 
22 THE ANTI-SLAVERY STRUGGLE. 
 
 to United States officers, and refused the 
 accused a hearing. Its execution at the North 
 was therefore the occasion of a profound excite- 
 ment and horror. Cases of inhuman cruelty, 
 and of false accusation to which no defence was 
 permitted, were multiplied until a practical 
 nullification of the law, in the form of " personal 
 liberty laws," securing a hearing for the accused 
 before State magistrates, was forced by public 
 opinion upon the legislature of the exposed 
 northern States. Before the excitement had 
 come to a head, the Whig convention of 1852 
 met and endorsed the compromise of 1850 " in 
 all its parts." Overwhelmed in the election 
 which followed, the Whig party was popularly 
 said to have " died of an attempt to swallow the 
 fugitive-slave law " ; it would have been more 
 correct to have said that the southern section 
 of the party had deserted in a body and gone 
 over to the Democratic party. National poli- 
 tics were thus left in an entirely anomalous con- 
 dition. The Democratic party was omnipotent 
 at the South, though it was afterward opposed 
 
THE ANTI-SLAVERY STRUGGLE. 23 
 
 feebly by the American (or " Know Nothing ") 
 organization, and was generally successful at 
 the North, though it was still met by the 
 Northern Whigs with vigorous opposition. 
 Such a state of affairs was not calculated to 
 satisfy thinking men ; and this period seems 
 to have been one in which very few thinking 
 men of any party were at all satisfied with 
 their party positions. 
 
 This was the hazardous situation into which 
 the Democratic managers chose to thrust one 
 of the most momentous pieces of legislation 
 in our political history the Kansas-Nebraska 
 bill. The responsibility for it is clearly on the 
 shoulders of Stephen A. Douglas. The over- 
 land travel to the Pacific coast had made it 
 necessary to remove the Indian title to Kansas 
 and Nebraska, and to organize them as Ter- 
 ritories, in order to afford protection to emi- 
 grants ; and Douglas, chairman of the Senate 
 committee on Territories, introduced a bill for 
 such organization in January, 1854. Both 
 these prospective Territories had been made 
 
24 THE ANTI-SLAVERY STRUGGLE. 
 
 free soil forever by the compromise of 1820; 
 the question of slavery had been settled, so 
 far as they were concerned ; but Douglas con- 
 sented, after a show of opposition, to reopen 
 Pandora's box. His original bill did not abro- 
 gate the Missouri compromise, and there seems 
 to have been no general Southern demand that 
 it should do so. But Douglas had become 
 intoxicated by the unexpected success of his 
 " popular sovereignty " make-shift in regard 
 to the Territories of 1850; and a notice of 
 an amendment to be offered by a southern 
 senator, abrogating the Missouri compromise, 
 was threat or excuse sufficient to bring him 
 to withdraw the bill. A week later, it was re- 
 introduced with the addition of " popular 
 sovereignty ": all questions pertaining to slavery 
 in these Territories, and in the States to be 
 formed from them, were to be left to the de- 
 cision of the people, through their representa- 
 tives; and the Missouri compromise of 1820 
 was declared "inoperative and void," as in- 
 consistent with the principles of the territorial 
 
THE ANTI-SLAVERY STRUGGLE. 2$ 
 
 legislation of 1850. It must be remembered 
 that the "non-intervention " of 1850 had been 
 confessedly based on no constitutional prin- 
 ciple whatever, but was purely a matter of ex- 
 pediency ; and that " non-intervention " in 
 Utah and New Mexico was no more incon- 
 sistent with the prohibition of slavery in 
 Kansas and Nebraska than " non-intervention " 
 in the Southwest Territory, sixty years before, 
 had been inconsistent with the prohibition of 
 slavery in the Northwest Territory. Whether 
 Douglas is to be considered as too scrupulous, 
 or too timid, or too willing to be terrified, it is 
 certain that his action was unnecessary. 
 
 After a struggle of some months, the Kansas- 
 Nebraska bill became law. The Missouri com- 
 promise was abrogated, and the question of the 
 extension of slavery to the territories was adrift 
 again, never to be got rid of except through the 
 abolition of slavery itself by war. The demands 
 of the South had now come fully abreast with 
 the proposal of Douglas : that slavery should 
 have permission to enter all the Territories, if it 
 
26 THE ANTI-SLAVERY STRUGGLE. 
 
 could. The opponents of the extension of 
 slavery, at first under the name of " Anti- 
 Nebraska men," then of the Republican party, 
 carried the elections for representatives in Con- 
 gress in i854~'55, and narrowly missed carrying 
 the Presidential election of 1856. The percent- 
 age of Democratic losses in the congressional 
 districts of the North was sufficient to leave 
 Douglas with hardly any supporters in Congress 
 from his own section. The Democratic party 
 was converted at once into a solid South, with 
 a northern attachment of popular votes which 
 was not sufficient to control very many Con- 
 gressmen or electoral votes. 
 
 Immigration into Kansas was organized at 
 once by leading men of the two sections, with 
 the common design of securing a majority of 
 the voters of the territory and applying " popu- 
 lar sovereignty " for or against slavery. The 
 first sudden inroad of Missouri intruders was 
 successful in securing a pro-slavery legislature 
 and laws ; but within two years the stream of 
 free-State immigration had become so powerful, 
 
THE ANTI-SLAVERY STRUGGLE. 2*J 
 
 in spite of murder, outrage, and open civil war, 
 that it was very evident that Kansas was to be 
 a free-State. Its expiring territorial legislature 
 endeavored to outwit its constituents by apply- 
 ing for admission as a slave State, under the 
 Lecompton constitution ; but the Douglas 
 Democrats could not support the attempt, and 
 it was defeated. Kansas, however, remained a 
 territory until 1861. 
 
 The cruelties of this Kansas episode could 
 not but be reflected in the feelings of the two 
 sections and in Congress. In the former it 
 showed too plainly that the divergence of the 
 two sections, indicated in Calhoun's speech of 
 1850, had widened to an absolute separation in 
 thought, feeling, and purpose. In the latter 
 the debates assumed a virulence which is illus- 
 trated by the speeches on the Sumner assault. 
 The current of events had at least carried the 
 sections far enough apart to give striking dis- 
 tance ; and the excuse for action was supplied 
 by the Dred Scott decision in 1857. 
 
 Dred Scott, a Missouri slave, claiming to be 
 
28 THE ANTI-SLAVERY STRUGGLE. 
 
 a free man under the Missouri compromise of 
 1820, had sued his master, and the case had 
 reached the Supreme Court. A majority of the 
 justices agreed in dismissing the suit ; but, as 
 nearly every justice filed an opinion, and as 
 nearly every opinion disagreed with the other 
 opinions on one or more points, it is not easy 
 to see what else is covered by the decision. 
 Nevertheless, the opinion of the Chief Justice, 
 Roger B. Taney, attracted general attention by 
 the strength of its argument and the character 
 of its views. It asserted, in brief, that no slave 
 could become a citizen of the United States, 
 even by enfranchisement or State law ; that the 
 prohibition of slavery by the Missouri compro- 
 mise of 1820 was unconstitutional and void ; 
 that the Constitution recognized property in 
 slaves, and was framed for the protection of 
 property ; that Congress had no rights or duties 
 in the territories but such as were granted or 
 imposed by the Constitution ; and that, there- 
 fore, Congress was bound not merely not to for- 
 bid slavery, but to actively protect slavery in 
 
THE ANTI-SLAVERY STRUGGLE. 29 
 
 the Territories. This was just the ground 
 which had always been held by Calhoun, though 
 the South had not supported him in it. Now 
 the South, rejecting Douglas and his " popular 
 sovereignty," was united in its devotion to the 
 decision of the Supreme Court, and called upon 
 the North to yield unhesitating obedience to 
 that body which Webster in 1830 had styled 
 the ultimate arbiter of constitutional questions. 
 This, it was evident, could never be. No re- 
 spectable authority at the North pretended to 
 uphold the keystone of Taney's argument, that 
 slaves were regarded as property by the Con- 
 stitution. On the contrary, it was agreed every- 
 where by those whose opinions were looked to 
 with respect, that slaves were regarded by the 
 Constitution as "persons held to service or 
 labor " under the laws of the State alone ; and 
 that the laws of the State could not give such 
 persons a fictitious legal character outside of 
 the State's jurisdiction. Even the Douglas 
 Democrats, who expressed a willingness to yield 
 to the Supreme Court's decision, did not pro- 
 fess to uphold Taney's share in it. 
 
30 THE ANTI-SLAVERY STRUGGLE. 
 
 As the Presidential election of 1860 drew 
 near, the evidences of separation became more 
 manifest. The absorption of northern Demo- 
 crats into the Republican party increased until 
 Douglas, in 1858, narrowly escaped defeat in 
 his contest with Lincoln for a re-election to the 
 Senate from Illinois. In 1860 the Republicans 
 nominated Lincoln for the Presidency on a 
 platform demanding prohibition of slavery in 
 the Territories. The southern delegates seceded 
 from the Democratic convention, and nomi 
 nated Breckenridge, on a platform demanding 
 congressional protection of slavery in the Terri- 
 tories. The remainder of the Democratic con- 
 vention nominated Douglas, with a declaration 
 of its willingness to submit to the decision of 
 the Supreme Court on questions of constitu- 
 tional law. The remnants of the former Whig 
 and American parties, under the name of the 
 Constitutional Union party, nominated Bell 
 without any declaration of principles. Lincoln 
 received a majority of the electoral votes, and 
 became President. His popular vote was a 
 plurality. 
 
THE ANTI-SLAVERY STRUGGLE. 31 
 
 Seward's address on the " Irrepressible Con- 
 flict," which closes this volume, is represents 
 tive of the division between the two sections, 
 as it stood just before the actual shock of con- 
 flict. Labor systems are delicate things ; and 
 that which the South had adopted, of enslaving 
 the laboring class, was one whose influence 
 could not help being universal and aggressive. 
 Every form of energy and prosperity which 
 tended to advance a citizen into the class of 
 representative rulers tended also to make him a 
 slave owner, and to shackle his official policy 
 and purposes with considerations inseparable 
 from his heavy personal interests. Men might 
 divide on other questions at the South ; but on 
 this question of slavery the action of the indi- 
 vidual had to follow the decisions of a majority 
 which, by the influence of ambitious aspirants 
 for the lead, was continually becoming more 
 aggressive. In constitutional countries, defec- 
 tions to the minority are a steady check upon 
 an aggressive majority ; but the southern ma- 
 jority was a steam engine without a safety valve. 
 
32 THE ANTI-SLAVERY STRUGGLE. 
 
 In this sense Seward and Lincoln, in 1858, were 
 correct ; the labor system of the South was not 
 only a menace to the whole country, but one 
 which could neither decrease nor stand still. It 
 was intolerable by the laws of its being ; and it 
 could be got rid of only by allowing a peaceable 
 secession, or by abolishing it through war. The 
 material prosperity which has followed the adop- 
 tion of the latter alternative, apart from the 
 moral aspects of the case, is enough to show 
 that the South has gained more than all that 
 slavery lost. 
 
RUFUS KING,* 
 
 OF NEW YORK. 1 
 (BORN 1755, DIED 1827.) 
 
 ON THE MISSOURI BILL 2 UNITED STATES SENATE, 
 FEBRUARY 1 1 AND 14, 1820. 
 
 THE Constitution declares " that Congress 
 shall have power to dispose of, and make all 
 needful rules and regulations respecting the 
 territory and other property of the United 
 States." Under this power Congress have 
 passed laws for the survey and sale of the pub- 
 lic lands ; for the division of the same into 
 separate territories ; and have ordained for 
 each of them a constitution, a plan of tem- 
 porary government, whereby the civil and 
 political rights of the inhabitants are regulated, 
 and the rights of conscience and other natural 
 rights are protected. 
 
 * For notes on King, see Appendix, p. 343. 
 3 33 
 
34 RUFUS KING. 
 
 The power to make all needful regulations, 
 includes the power to determine what regula- 
 tions are needful ; and if a regulation prohibit- 
 ing slavery within any territory of the United 
 States be, as it has been, deemed needful, Con- 
 gress possess the power to make the same, and, 
 moreover, to pass all laws necessary to carry 
 this power into execution. 
 
 The territory of Missouri is a portion of 
 Louisiana, which was purchased of France, and 
 belongs to the United States in full dominion ; 
 in the language of the Constitution, Missouri 
 is their territory or property, and is subject like 
 other territories of the United States, to the 
 regulations and temporary government, which 
 has been, or shall be prescribed by Congress. 
 The clause of the Constitution which grants 
 this power to Congress, is so comprehensive 
 and unambiguous, and its purpose so manifest, 
 that commentary will not render the power, or 
 the object of its establishment, more explicit 
 or plain. 
 
 The Constitution further provides that " new 
 States may be admitted by Congress into this 
 Union." As this power is conferred without 
 limitation, the time, terms, and circumstances 
 of the admission of new States, are referred to 
 
ON THE MISSOURI BILL. 35 
 
 the discretion of Congress ; which may admit 
 new States, but are not obliged to do so of 
 right no new State can demand admission into 
 the Union, unless such demand be founded 
 upon some previous engagement of the United 
 States. 
 
 When admitted by Congress into the Union, 
 whether by compact or otherwise, the new 
 State becomes entitled to the enjoyment of 
 the same rights, and bound to perform the like 
 duties as the other States ; and its citizens will 
 be entitled to all privileges and immunities of 
 citizens in the several States. 
 
 The citizens of each State possess rights, and 
 owe duties that are peculiar to, and arise out of, 
 the Constitution and laws of the several States. 
 These rights and duties differ from each other 
 in the different States, and among these dif- 
 ferences none is so remarkable or important as 
 that which proceeds from the Constitution and 
 laws of the several States respecting slavery; 
 the same being permitted in some States and 
 forbidden in others. 
 
 The question respecting slavery in the old 
 thirteen States had been decided and settled 
 before the adoption of the Constitution, which 
 grants no power to Congress to interfere with, 
 
36 RUFUS KING. 
 
 or to change what had been so previously 
 settled. The slave States, therefore, are free 
 to continue or to abolish slavery. Since the 
 year 1808 Congress have possessed power to 
 prohibit and have prohibited the further migra- 
 tion or importation of slaves into any of the 
 old thirteen States, and at all times, under the 
 Constitution, have had power to prohibit such 
 migration or importation into any of the new 
 States or territories of the United States. The 
 Constitution contains no express provision 
 respecting slavery in a new State that may be 
 admitted into the Union ; every regulation 
 upon this subject belongs to the power whose 
 consent is necessary to the formation and ad- 
 mission of new States into the Union. Con- 
 gress may, therefore, make it a condition of the 
 admission of a new State, that slavery shall be 
 forever prohibited within the same. We may, 
 with the more confidence, pronounce this to be 
 the true construction of the Constitution, as it 
 has been so amply confirmed by the past deci- 
 sions of Congress. 
 
 Although the articles of confederation were 
 drawn up and approved by the old Congress, 
 in the year 1777, and soon afterwards were 
 ratified by some of the States, their complete 
 
ON THE MISSOURI BILL. 37 
 
 ratification did not take place until the year 
 1781. The States which possessed small and 
 already settled territory, withheld their ratifi- 
 cation, in order to obtain from the large States 
 a cession to the United States of a portion of 
 their vacant territory. Without entering into 
 the reasons on which this demand was urged, 8 it 
 is well known that they had an influence on 
 Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, and 
 Virginia, which States ceded to the United 
 States their respective claims to the territory 
 lying northwest of the river Ohio. This ces- 
 sion was made on the express condition, that 
 the ceded territory should be sold for the com- 
 mon benefit of the United States; that it 
 should be laid out into States, and that the 
 States so laid out should form distinct republi- 
 can States, and be admitted as members of the 
 Federal Union, having the same rights of sover- 
 eignty, freedom, and independence as the other 
 States. Of the four States which made this 
 cession, two permitted, and the other two pro- 
 hibited slavery. 
 
 The United States having in this manner 
 become proprietors of the extensive territory 
 northwest of the river Ohio, although the con- 
 federation contained no express provision upon 
 
38 RUFUS KING. 
 
 the subject, Congress, the only representatives 
 of the United States, assumed as incident to 
 their office, the power to dispose of this terri- 
 tory ; and for this purpose, to divide the same 
 into distinct States, to provide for the tempo- 
 rary government of the inhabitants thereof, and 
 for their ultimate admission as new States into 
 the Federal Union. 
 
 The ordinance for those purposes, which was 
 passed by Congress in 1787, contains certain 
 articles, which are called " Articles of compact 
 between the original States and the people and 
 States within the said territory, for ever to re- 
 main unalterable, unless by common consent." 
 The sixth of those unalterable articles pro- 
 vides, " that there shall be neither slavery nor 
 involuntary servitude in the said territory." 
 
 The Constitution of the United States sup- 
 plies the defect that existed in the articles of 
 confederation, and has vested Congress, as has 
 been stated, with ample powers on this im- 
 portant subject. Accordingly, the ordinance of 
 1787, passed by the old Congress, was ratified 
 and confirmed by an act of the new Congress 
 during their first session under the Constitution. 
 
 The State of Virginia, which ceded to the 
 United States her claims to this territory, con- 
 
ON THE MISSOURI BILL. 39 
 
 sented by her delegates in the old Congress to 
 this ordinance not only Virginia, but North 
 Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, by the 
 unanimous votes of their delegates in the old 
 Congress, approved of the ordinance of 1787, 
 by which slavery is forever abolished in the 
 territory northwest of the river Ohio. 
 
 Without the votes of these States, the ordi- 
 nance could not have passed ; and there is no 
 recollection of an opposition from any of these 
 States to the act of confirmation, passed under 
 the actual Constitution. Slavery had long been 
 established in these States the evil was felt in 
 their institutions, laws, and habits, and could 
 not easily or at once be abolished. But these 
 votes so honorable to these States, satisfactorily 
 demonstrate their unwillingness to permit the 
 extension of slavery into the new States which 
 might be admitted by Congress into the Union. 
 
 The States of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, on 
 the northwest of the river Ohio, have been ad- 
 mitted by Congress into the Union, on the 
 condition and conformably to the article of 
 compact, contained in the ordinance of 1787, 
 and by which it is declared that there shall be 
 neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in 
 any of the said States. 
 
4O RUFUS KING. 
 
 Although Congress possess the power of mak- 
 ing the exclusion of slavery a part or condition 
 of the act admitting a new State into the 
 Union, they may, in special cases, and for suf- 
 ficient reasons, forbear to exercise this power. 
 Thus Kentucky and Vermont were admitted as 
 new States into the Union, without making the 
 abolition of slavery the condition of their ad- 
 mission. In Vermont, slavery never existed ; 
 her laws excluding the same. Kentucky was 
 formed out of, and settled by, Virginia, and the 
 inhabitants of Kentucky, equally with those of 
 Virginia, by fair interpretation of the Constitu- 
 tion, were exempt from all such interference of 
 Congress, as might disturb or impair the security 
 of their property in slaves. The western terri- 
 tory of North Carolina and Georgia, having 
 been partially granted and settled under the 
 authority of these States, before the cession 
 thereof to the United States, and these States 
 being original parties to the Constitution which 
 recognizes the existence of slavery, no measure 
 restraining slavery could be applied by Congress 
 to this territory. But to remove all doubt on 
 this head, it was made a condition of the cession 
 of this territory to the United States, that the 
 ordinance of 1787, except the sixth article 
 
ON THE MISSOURI BILL. 41 
 
 thereof, respecting slavery, should be applied 
 to the same ; and that the sixth article should 
 not be so applied. Accordingly, the States of 
 Tennessee, Mississippi, and Alabama, compre- 
 hending the territory ceded to the United 
 States by North Carolina and Georgia, have 
 been admitted as new States into the Union, 
 without a provision, by which slavery shall be 
 excluded from the same. According to this 
 abstract of the proceedings of Congress in the 
 admission of new States into the Union, of the 
 eight new States within the original limits of 
 the United States, four have been admitted 
 without an article excluding slavery ; three 
 have been admitted on the condition that 
 slavery should be excluded ; and one admitted 
 without such condition. In the few first cases, 
 Congress were restrained from exercising the 
 power to exclude slavery ; in the next three, 
 they exercised this power ; and in the last, it 
 was unnecessary to do so, slavery being ex- 
 cluded by the State Constitution. 
 
 The province of Louisiana, soon after its ces- 
 sion to the United States, was divided into two 
 territories, comprehending such parts thereof 
 as were contiguous to the river Mississippi, 
 being the only parts of the province that were 
 
42 RUFUS KING. 
 
 inhabited. The foreign language, laws, cus- 
 toms, and manners of the inhabitants, required 
 the immediate and cautious attention of Con- 
 gress, which, instead of extending, in the first 
 instance, to these territories the ordinance of 
 1787, ordained special regulations for the gov- 
 ernment of the same. These regulations were 
 from time to time revised and altered, as obser- 
 vation and experience showed to be expedient, 
 and as was deemed most likely to encourage and 
 promote those changes which would soonest 
 qualify the inhabitants for self-government and 
 admission into the Union. When the United 
 States took possession of the province of 
 Louisiana in 1804, it was estimated to contain 
 50,000 white inhabitants, 40,000 slaves, and 
 2,000 free persons of color. 
 
 More than four-fifths of the whites, and all 
 the slaves, except about thirteen hundred, in- 
 habited New Orleans and the adjacent territory ; 
 the residue, consisting of less than ten thousand 
 whites, and about thirteen hundred slaves, were 
 dispersed throughout the country now included 
 in the Arkansas and Missouri territories. 4 The 
 greater part of the thirteen hundred slaves 
 were in the Missouri territory, some of them 
 having been removed thither from the old 
 
ON THE MISSOURI BILL. 43 
 
 French settlements on the east side of the 
 Mississippi, after the passing of the ordinance 
 of 1787, by which slavery in those settlements 
 was abolished. 
 
 In 1812, the territory of New Orleans, to 
 which the ordinance of 1787, with the excep- 
 tion of certain parts thereof, had been pre- 
 viously extended, was permitted by Congress 
 to form a Constitution and State Government, 
 and admitted as a new State into the Union, 
 by the name of Louisiana. The acts of Con- 
 gress for these purposes, in addition to sundry 
 important provisions respecting rivers and pub- 
 lic lands, which are declared to be irrevocable 
 unless by common consent, annex other terms 
 and conditions, whereby it is established, not 
 only that the Constitution of Louisiana should 
 be republican, but that it should contain the 
 fundamental principles of civil and religious 
 liberty, that it should secure to the citizens the 
 trial by jury in all criminal cases, and the privi- 
 lege of the writ of habeas corpus according to 
 the Constitution of the United States ; and 
 after its admission into the Union, that the 
 laws which Louisiana might pass, should be 
 promulgated ; its records of every description 
 preserved ; and its judicial and legislative pro- 
 
44 RUFUS KING. 
 
 ceedings conducted in the language in which 
 the laws and judicial proceedings of the United 
 States are published and conducted. 
 
 * -x- # # & * -X-* 
 
 Having annexed these new and extraordi- 
 nary conditions to the act for the admission of 
 Louisiana into the Union, Congress may, if 
 they shall deem it expedient, annex the like 
 conditions to the act for the admission of Mis- 
 souri ; and, moreover, as in the case of Ohio, 
 Indiana, and Illinois, provide by an article 
 for that purpose, that slavery shall not exist 
 within the same. 
 
 Admitting this construction of the Constitu- 
 tion, it is alleged that the power by which Con- 
 gress excluded slavery from the States north- 
 west of the river Ohio, is suspended in respect 
 to the States that may be formed in the prov- 
 ince of Louisiana. The article of the treaty 
 referred to declares : " That the inhabitants of 
 the territory shall be incorporated in the Union 
 of the United States, and admitted as soon as 
 possible ; according to the principles of the 
 Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all 
 rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens 
 of the United States ; and in the meantime, 
 they shall be maintained and protected in the 
 
ON THE MISSOURI BILL. 45 
 
 free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and 
 the religion which they profess." " 
 
 Although there is want of precision in the 
 article, its scope and meaning can not be mis- 
 understood. It constitutes a stipulation by 
 which the United States engage that the in- 
 habitants of Louisiana should be formed into a 
 State or States, and as soon as the provisions 
 of the Constitution permit, that they should be 
 admitted as new States into the Union on the 
 footing of the other States ; and before such 
 admission, and during their territorial govern- 
 ment, that they should be maintained and pro- 
 tected by Congress in the enjoyment of their 
 liberty, property, and religion. The first clause 
 of this stipulation will be executed by the ad- 
 mission of Missouri as a new State into the 
 Union, as such admission will impart to the in- 
 habitants of Missouri " all the rights, advan- 
 tages, and immunities " which citizens of the 
 United States derive from the Constitution 
 thereof ; these rights may be denominated Fed- 
 eral rights, are uniform throughout the Union, 
 and are common to all its citizens : but the 
 rights derived from the Constitution and laws 
 of the States, which may be denominated State 
 rights, in many particulars differ from each 
 
46 RUFUS KING. 
 
 other. Thus, while the Federal rights of the 
 citizens of Massachusetts and Virginia are the 
 same, their State rights are dissimilar and dif- 
 ferent, slavery being forbidden in one, and 
 permitted in the other State. This difference 
 arises out of the Constitutions and laws of the 
 two States, in the same manner as the difference 
 in the rights of the citizens of these States to 
 vote for representatives in Congress arises out 
 of the State laws and Constitution. In Massa- 
 chusetts, every person of lawful age, and pos- 
 sessing property of any sort, of the value of 
 two hundred dollars, may vote for representa- 
 tives to Congress. In Virginia, no person can 
 vote for representatives to Congress, unless he 
 be a freeholder. As the admission of a new 
 State into the Union confers upon its citizens 
 only the rights denominated Federal, and as 
 these are common to the citizens of all the 
 States, as well of those in which slavery is pro- 
 hibited, as of those in which it is allowed, it fol- 
 lows that the prohibition of slavery in Missouri 
 will not impair the Federal rights of its citizens, 
 and that such prohibition is not sustained by 
 the clause of the treaty which has been cited. 7 
 
 ******* 
 As all nations do not permit slavery, the 
 
ON THE MISSOURI BILL. 47 
 
 term property, in its common and universal 
 meaning, does not include or describe slaves. 
 In treaties, therefore, between nations, and 
 especially in those of the United States, when- 
 ever stipulations respecting slaves were to be 
 made, the word " negroes," or " slaves," have 
 been employed, and the omission of these words 
 in this clause, increases the uncertainty whether, 
 by the term property, slaves were intended to 
 be included. But admitting that such was the 
 intention of the parties, the stipulation is not 
 only temporary, but extends no further than to 
 the property actually possessed by the inhabi- 
 tants of Missouri, when it was first occupied by 
 the United States. Property since acquired by 
 them, and property acquired or possessed by 
 the new inhabitants of Missouri, has in each 
 case been acquired under the laws of the United 
 States, and not during and under the laws of 
 the province of Louisiana. Should, therefore, 
 the future introduction of slaves into Missouri 
 be forbidden, the feelings of the citizens would 
 soon become reconciled to their exclusion, and 
 the inconsiderable number of slaves owned by 
 the inhabitants at the date of the cession of 
 Louisiana, would be emancipated or sent for 
 sale into States where slavery exists. 
 
48 RUFUS KING. 
 
 It is further objected, that the article of the 
 act of admission into the Union, by which 
 slavery should be excluded from Missouri, 
 would be nugatory, as the new State in virtue 
 of its sovereignty would be at liberty to revoke 
 its consent, and annul the article by which 
 slavery is excluded. 
 
 Such revocation would be contrary to the 
 obligations of good faith, which enjoins the ob- 
 servance of our engagements ; it would be re- 
 pugnant to the principles on which government 
 itself is founded ; sovereignty in every lawful 
 government is a limited power, and can do only 
 what it is lawful to do. Sovereigns, like indi- 
 viduals, are bound by their engagements, and 
 have no moral power to break them. Treaties 
 between nations repose on this principle. If 
 the new State can revoke and annul an article 
 concluded between itself and the United States, 
 by which slavery is excluded from it, it may 
 revoke and annul any other article of the com- 
 pact ; it may, for example, annul the article 
 respecting public lands, and in virtue of its 
 sovereignty, assume the right to tax and to sell 
 the lands of the United States. There is yet 
 a more satisfactory answer to this objection. 
 The judicial power of the United States is co- 
 
ON THE MISSOURI BILL. 49 
 
 extensive with their legislative power, and every 
 question arising under the Constitution or laws 
 of the United States, is recognizable by the 
 judiciary thereof. Should the new State re- 
 scind any of the articles of compact contained 
 in the act of admission into the Union, that, for 
 example, by which slavery is excluded, and 
 should pass a law authorizing slavery, the judi- 
 ciary of the United States on proper applica- 
 tion, would immediately deliver from bondage, 
 any person retained as a slave in said State. 
 And, in like manner, in all instances affecting 
 individuals, the judiciary might be employed to 
 defeat every attempt to violate the Constitu- 
 tion and laws of the United States. 
 
 If Congress possess the power to exclude 
 slavery from Missouri, it still remains to be 
 shown that they ought to do so. The exam- 
 ination of this branch of the subject, for ob- 
 vious reasons, is attended with peculiar diffi- 
 culty, and cannot be made without passing over 
 arguments which, to some of us, might appear 
 to be decisive, but the use of which, in this 
 place, would call up feelings, the influence of 
 which would disturb, if not defeat, the impar- 
 tial consideration of the subject. 
 
 Slavery, unhappily, exists within the United 
 
50 RUFUS KING. 
 
 States. Enlightened men, in the States where 
 it is permitted, and everywhere out of them, 
 regret its existence among us, and seek for the 
 means of limiting and of mitigating it. The 
 first introduction of slaves is not imputable to 
 the present generation, nor even to their ances- 
 tors. Before the year 1642, the trade and ports 
 of the colonies were open to foreigners equally 
 as those of the mother country ; and as early 
 as 1620, a few years only after the planting of 
 the colony of Virginia, and the same year in 
 which the first settlement was made in the old 
 colony of Plymouth, a cargo of negroes was 
 brought into and sold as slaves in Virginia by a 
 foreign ship. From this beginning, the impor- 
 tation of slaves was continued for nearly two 
 centuries. To her honor, Virginia, while a 
 colony, opposed the importation of slaves, and 
 was the first State to prohibit the same, by a 
 law passed for this purpose in 1778, thirty years 
 before the general prohibition enacted by Con- 
 gress in 1808. The laws and customs of the 
 States in which slavery has existed for so long 
 a period, must have had their influence on the 
 opinions and habits of the citizens, which ought 
 not to be disregarded on the present occasion. 
 * * # # # * * 
 
ON THE MISSOURI BILL. 51 
 
 When the general convention that formed 
 the Constitution took this subject into their 
 consideration, the whole question was once 
 more examined ; and while it was agreed that 
 all contributions to the common treasury should 
 be made according to the ability of the several 
 States to furnish the same, the old difficulty 
 recurred in agreeing upon a rule whereby such 
 ability should be ascertained, there being no 
 simple standard by which the ability of indi- 
 viduals to pay taxes can be ascertained. A 
 diversity in the selection of taxes has been 
 deemed requisite to their equalization. Between 
 communities this difficulty is less considerable, 
 and although the rule of relative numbers 
 would not accurately measure the relative 
 wealth of nations, in States in the circumstances 
 of the United States, whose institutions, laws, 
 and employments are so much alike, the rule 
 of numbers is probably as near equal as any 
 other simple and practical rule can be expected 
 to be (though between the old and new States 
 its equity is defective), these considerations, 
 added to the approbation which had already 
 been given to the rule, by a majority of the 
 States, induced the convention to agree that 
 direct taxes should be apportioned among the 
 
52 RUFUS KING. 
 
 States, according to the whole number of free 
 persons, and three-fifths of the slaves which 
 they might respectively contain. 
 
 The rule for apportionment of taxes is not 
 necessarily the most equitable rule for the ap- 
 portionment of representatives among the 
 States ; property must not be disregarded in 
 the composition of the first rule, but frequently 
 is overlooked in the establishment of the second. 
 A rule which might be approved in respect to 
 taxes, would be disapproved in respect to repre- 
 sentatives ; one individual possessing twice as 
 much property as another, might be required to 
 pay double the taxes of such other ; but no 
 man has two votes to another's one ; rich or 
 poor, each has but a single vote in the choice 
 of representatives. 
 
 In the dispute between England and the 
 colonies, the latter denied the right of the 
 former to tax them, because they were not 
 represented in the English Parliament. They 
 contended that, according to the law of the 
 land, taxation and representation were insepar- 
 able. The rule of taxation being agreed upon 
 by the convention, it is possible that the maxim 
 with which we successfully opposed the claim 
 of England may have had an influence in pro- 
 
ON THE MISSOURI BILL. 53 
 
 curing the adoption of the same rule for the 
 apportionment of representatives ; the true 
 meaning, however, of this principle of the Eng- 
 lish constitution is, that a colony or district is 
 not to be taxed which is not represented ; not 
 that its number of representatives shall be 
 ascertained by its quota of taxes. If three- 
 fifths of the slaves are virtually represented, or 
 their owners obtain a disproportionate power 
 in legislation, and in the appointment of the 
 President of the United States, why should not 
 other property be virtually represented, and its 
 owners obtain a like power in legislation, and 
 in the choice of the President? Property is 
 not confined in slaves, but exists in houses, 
 stores, ships, capital in trade, and manufactures. 
 To secure to the owners of property in slaves 
 greater political power than is allowed to the 
 owners of other and equivalent property, seems 
 to be contrary to our theory of the equality of 
 personal rights, inasmuch as the citizens of 
 some States thereby become entitled to other 
 and greater political power than the citizens of 
 other States. The present House of Repre- 
 sentatives consist of one hundred and eighty- 
 one members, which are apportioned among 
 the States in a ratio of one representative for 
 
54 RUFUS KING. 
 
 every thirty-five thousand federal members, 
 which are ascertained by adding to the whole 
 number of free persons, three-fifths of the 
 slaves. According to the last census, the 
 whole number of slaves within the United 
 was 1,191,364, which entitles the States pos- 
 sessing the same to twenty representatives, and 
 twenty presidential electors more than they 
 would be entitled to, were the slaves excluded. 
 By the last census, Virginia contained 582,104 
 free persons, and 392,518 slaves. In any of the 
 States where slavery is excluded, 582,104 free 
 persons would be entitled to elect only sixteen 
 representatives, while in Virginia, 582,104 free 
 persons, by the addition of three-fifths of her 
 slaves, become entitled to elect, and do in fact 
 elect, twenty-three representatives, being seven 
 additional ones on account of her slaves. Thus, 
 while 35,000 free persons are requisite to elect 
 one representative in a State where slavery is 
 prohibited, 25,559 ^ ree persons in Virginia may 
 and do elect a representative : so that five free 
 persons in Virginia have as much power in the 
 choice of Representatives to Congress, and in 
 the appointment of presidential electors, as 
 seven free persons in any of the States in which 
 slavery does not exist. 
 
ON THE MISSOURI BILL. 55 
 
 This inequality in the apportionment of 
 representatives was not misunderstood at the 
 adoption of the Constitution, but no one antici- 
 pated the fact that the whole of the revenue of 
 the United States would be derived from indi- 
 rect taxes (which cannot be supposed to spread 
 themselves over the several States according to 
 the rule for the apportionment of direct taxes), 
 but it was believed that a part of the contribu- 
 tion to the common treasury would be appor- 
 tioned among the States by the rule for the 
 apportionment of representatives. The States 
 in which slavery is prohibited, ultimately, 
 though with reluctance, acquiesced in the dis- 
 proportionate number of representatives and 
 electors that was secured to the slaveholding 
 States. The concession was, at the time, be- 
 lieved to be a great one, and has proved to 
 have been the greatest which was made to 
 secure the adoption of the Constitution. 
 
 Great, however, as this concession was, it was 
 definite, and its full extent was comprehended. 
 It was a settlement between the original thir- 
 teen States. The considerations arising out of 
 their actual condition, their past connection, 
 and the obligation which all felt to promote a 
 reformation in the Federal Government, were 
 
56 RUFUS KING. 
 
 peculiar to the time and to the parties, and are 
 not applicable to the new States, which Con- 
 gress may now be willing to admit into the 
 Union. 
 
 The equality of rights, which includes an 
 equality of burdens, is a vital principle in our 
 theory of government, and its jealous preserva- 
 tion is the best security of public and individual 
 freedom ; the departure from this principle in 
 the disproportionate power and influence, al- 
 lowed to the slaveholding States, was a neces- 
 sary sacrifice to the establishment of the 
 Constitution. The effect of this concession 
 has been obvious in the preponderance which 
 it has given to the slaveholding States over the 
 other States. Nevertheless, it is an ancient 
 settlement, and faith and honor stand pledged 
 not to disturb it. But the extension of this 
 disproportionate power to the new States 
 would be unjust and odious. The States 
 whose power would be abridged, and whose 
 burdens would be increased by the measure, 
 cannot be expected to consent to it, and we 
 may hope that the other States are too magna- 
 nimous to insist on it. 
 
 * * * # # * * 
 
 It ought not to be forgotten that the first 
 
ON THE MISSOURI BILL. 57 
 
 and main object of the negotiation which led 
 to the acquisition of Louisiana, was the free 
 navigation of the Mississippi, a river that forms 
 the sole passage from the western States to the 
 ocean. This navigation, although of general 
 benefit, has been always valued and desired, as 
 of peculiar advantage to the Western States, 
 whose demands to obtain it were neither equiv- 
 ocal nor unreasonable. But with the river 
 Mississippi, by a sort of coercion, we acquired, 
 by good or ill fortune, as our future measures 
 shall determine, the whole province of Louisi- 
 ana. As this acquisition was made at the 
 common expense, it is very fairly urged that 
 the advantages to be derived from it should 
 also be common. This, it is said, will not hap- 
 pen if slavery be excluded from Missouri, as 
 the citizens of the States where slavery is per- 
 mitted will be shut out, and none but citizens 
 of States where slavery is prohibited, can be- 
 come inhabitants of Missouri. 
 
 But this consequence will not arise from the 
 proposed exclusion of slavery. The citizens of 
 States in which slavery is allowed, like all other 
 citizens, will be free to become inhabitants of 
 Missouri, in like manner as they have become 
 inhabitants of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, in 
 
58 RUFUS KING. 
 
 which slavery is forbidden. The exclusion of 
 slaves from Missouri will not, therefore, operate 
 unequally among the citizens of the United 
 States. The Constitution provides, " that the 
 citizens of each State shall be entitled to enjoy 
 all the rights and immunities of citizens of the 
 several States " ; every citizen may, therefore, 
 remove from one to another State, and there 
 enjoy the rights and immunities of its citizens. 
 The proposed provision excludes slaves, not citi- 
 zens, whose rights it will not, and cannot impair. 
 Besides there is nothing new or peculiar 
 in a provision for the exclusion of slavery; 
 it has been established in the States north- 
 west of the river Ohio, and has existed from 
 the beginning in the old States where slavery 
 is forbidden. The citizens of States where 
 slavery is allowed, may become inhabitants 
 of Missouri, but cannot hold slaves there, 
 nor in any other State where slavery is pro- 
 hibited. As well might the laws prohibiting 
 slavery in the old States become the subject of 
 complaint, as the proposed exclusion of slavery 
 in Missouri ; but there is no foundation for 
 such complaint in either case. It is further 
 urged, that the admission of slaves into Mis- 
 souri would be limited to the slaves who are 
 
ON THE MISSOURI BILL. 59 
 
 already within the United States ; that their 
 health and comfort would be promoted by 
 their dispersion, and that their numbers would 
 be the same whether they remain confined to 
 the States where slavery exists, or are dispersed 
 over the new States that may be admitted into 
 the Union." 
 
 That none but domestic slaves would be 
 introduced into Missouri, and the other new 
 and frontier States, is most fully disproved by 
 the thousands of fresh slaves, which, in viola- 
 tion of our laws, are annually imported into 
 Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi. 
 
 We may renew our efforts, and enact new 
 laws with heavier penalties against the importa- 
 tion of slaves : the revenue cutters may more 
 diligently watch our shores, and the naval force 
 may be employed on the coast of Africa, and 
 on the ocean, to break up the slave trade but 
 these means will not put an end to it ; so long 
 as markets are open for the purchase of slaves, 
 so long they will be supplied ; and so long as 
 we permit the existence of slavery in our new 
 and frontier States, so long slave markets will 
 exist. The plea of humanity is equally inad- 
 missible, since no one who has ever witnessed 
 the experiment will believe that the condition 
 
6O RUFUS KING. 
 
 of slaves is made better by the breaking up, and 
 separation of their families, nor by their re- 
 moval from the old States to the new ones ; 
 and the objection to the provision of the bill, 
 excluding slavery from Missouri, is equally 
 applicable to the like prohibitions of the old 
 States : these should be revoked, in order that 
 the slaves now confined to certain States, may, 
 for their health and comfort, and multiplica- 
 tion, be spread over the whole Union." 
 ******* 
 
 Slavery cannot exist in Missouri without the 
 consent of Congress ; the question may there- 
 fore be considered, in certain lights, as a new 
 one, it being the first instance in which an 
 inquiry respecting slavery, in a case so free 
 from the influence of the ancient laws, usages, 
 and manners of the country, has come before 
 the Senate. 
 
 The territory of Missouri is beyond our 
 ancient limits, and the inquiry whether slavery 
 shall exist there, is open to many of the argu- 
 ments that might be employed, had slavery 
 never existed within the United States. It is 
 a question of no ordinary importance. Free- 
 dom and slavery are the parties which stand 
 this day before the Senate ; and upon its de- 
 
ON THE MISSOURI BILL. 6 1 
 
 cision the empire of the one or the other will 
 be established in the new State which we are 
 about to admit into the Union. 
 
 If slavery be permitted in Missouri with the 
 climate, and soil, and in the circumstances of 
 this territory, what hope can be entertained 
 that it will ever be prohibited in any of the 
 new States that will be formed in the immense 
 region west of the Mississippi ? Will the co-exten- 
 sive establishment of slavery and of the new 
 States throughout this region, lessen the dan- 
 gers of domestic insurrection, or of foreign ag- 
 gression ? Will this manner of executing the 
 great trust of admitting new States into the 
 Union, contribute to assimilate our manners 
 and usages, to increase our mutual affection and 
 confidence, and to establish that equality of 
 benefits and burdens which constitutes the true 
 basis of our strength and union ? Will the 
 militia of the nation, which must furnish our 
 soldiers and seamen, increase as slaves increase ? 
 Will the actual disproportion in the military 
 service of the nation be thereby diminished? 
 a disproportion that will be, as it has been, 
 readily borne, as between the original States, 
 because it arises out of their compact of Union, 
 but which may become a badge of inferiority, 
 
62 RUFUS KING. 
 
 if required for the protection of those who, 
 being free to choose, persist in the establish- 
 ment of maxims, the inevitable effect of which 
 will deprive them of the power to contribute to 
 the common defence, and even of the ability to 
 protect themselves. There are limits within 
 which our federal system must stop ; no one 
 has supposed that it could be indefinitely ex- 
 tended we are now about to pass our original 
 boundary ; if this can be done without affect- 
 ing the principles of our free governments, it 
 can be accomplished only by the most vigilant 
 attention to plant, cherish, and sustain the 
 principles of liberty in the new States, that 
 may be formed beyond our ancient limits ; 
 with our utmost caution in this respect, it may 
 still be justly apprehended that the General 
 Government must be made stronger as we be- 
 come more extended. 
 
 But if, instead of freedom, slavery is to pre- 
 vail and spread, as we extend our dominion, 
 can any reflecting man fail to see the necessity 
 of giving to the General Government greater 
 powers, to enable it to afford the protection 
 that will be demanded of it ? powers that will 
 be difficult to control, and which may prove 
 fatal to the public liberties." 
 
WILLIAM PINKNEY,* 
 
 OF MARYLAND. 1 
 (BORN 1764, DIED 1822.) 
 
 ON THE MISSOURI QUESTION 2 UNITED STATES 
 SENATE, FEBRUARY 15, l82O. 
 
 As I am not a very frequent speaker in this 
 assembly, and have shown a desire, I trust, 
 rather to listen to the wisdom of others than to 
 lay claim to superior knowledge by undertak- 
 ing to advise, even when advice, by being sea- 
 sonable in point of time, might have some 
 chance of being profitable, you will, perhaps, 
 bear with me if I venture to trouble you once 
 more on that eternal subject which has lingered 
 here, until all its natural interest is exhausted, 
 and every topic connected with it is literally 
 worn to tatters. I shall, I assure you, sir, 
 speak with laudable brevity not merely on 
 account of the feeble state of my health, and 
 
 * For notes on Pinkney, see Appendix, p. 357- 
 63 
 
64 WILLIAM PINKNEY. 
 
 from some reverence for the laws of good taste 
 which forbid me to speak otherwise, but also 
 from a sense of justice to those who honor me 
 with their attention. My single purpose, as I 
 suggested yesterday, is to subject to a friendly, 
 yet close examination, some portions of a 
 speech, imposing, certainly, on account of the 
 distinguished quarter from whence it came 
 not very imposing (if I may so say, without 
 departing from that respect which I sincerely 
 feel and intend to manifest for eminent abilities 
 and long experience) for any other reason. 3 
 # * * * * # * 
 
 I confess to you, nevertheless, that some of 
 the principles announced by the honorable gen- 
 tleman from New York, with an explicitness 
 that reflected the highest credit on his candor, 
 did, when they were first presented, startle me 
 not a little. They were not perhaps entirely 
 new. Perhaps I had seen them before in some 
 shadowy and doubtful shape, 
 
 " If shape it might be called, that shape had none, 
 Distinguishable in member, joint, or limb." 
 
 But in the honorable gentleman's speech they 
 were shadowy and doubtful no longer. He ex- 
 hibited them in forms so boldly and accurately 
 
ON THE MISSOURI QUESTION. 65 
 
 defined with contours so distinctly traced 
 with features so pronounced and striking that I 
 was unconscious for a moment that they might 
 be old acquaintances. I received them as a 
 novi hospites within these walls, and gazed 
 upon them with astonishment and alarm. I 
 have recovered, however, thank God, from this 
 paroxysm of terror, although not from that of 
 astonishment. I have sought and found tran- 
 quillity and courage in my former consolatory 
 faith. My reliance is that these principles will 
 obtain no general currency ; for, if they should, 
 it requires no gloomy imagination to sadden 
 the perspective of the future. My reliance is 
 upon the unsophisticated good sense and noble 
 spirit of the American people. I have what I 
 may be allowed to call a proud and patriotic 
 trust, that they will give countenance to no 
 principles which, if followed out to their obvi- 
 ous consequences, will not only shake the 
 goodly fabric of the Union to its foundations, 
 but reduce it to a melancholy ruin. The 
 people of this country, if I do not wholly mis- 
 take their character, are wise as well as virtu- 
 ous. They know the value of that federal 
 association which is to them the single pledge 
 and guarantee of power and peace. Their 
 
66 WILLIAM PINKNEY. 
 
 warm and pious affections will cling to it as to 
 their only hope of prosperity and happiness, in 
 defiance of pernicious abstractions, by whom- 
 soever inculcated, or howsoever seductive or 
 alluring in their aspect. 4 
 
 ***** # * 
 
 Sir, it was but the other day that we were 
 forbidden, (properly forbidden I am sure, for 
 the prohibition came from you,) 5 to assume that 
 there existed any intention to impose a pro- 
 spective restraint on the domestic legislation 
 of Missouri a restraint to act upon it contem- 
 poraneously with its origin as a State, and to 
 continue adhesive to it through all the stages 
 of its political existence. We are now, how- 
 ever, permitted to know that it is determined 
 by a sort of political surgery to amputate one 
 of the limbs of its local sovereignty, and thus 
 mangled and disparaged, and thus only, to 
 receive it into the bosom of the Constitution. 
 It is now avowed that, while Maine is to be 
 ushered into the Union with every possible 
 demonstration of studious reverence on our 
 part, and on hers, with colors flying, and all the 
 other graceful accompaniments of honorable 
 triumph, this ill-conditioned upstart of the 
 West, this obscure foundling of a wilderness 
 
ON THE MISSOURI QUESTION. 6? 
 
 that was but yesterday the hunting-ground of 
 the savage, is to find her way into the Ameri- 
 can family as she can, with an humiliating 
 badge of remediless inferiority patched upon 
 her garments, with the mark of recent, qualified 
 manumission upon her, or rather with a brand 
 upon her forehead to tell the story of her terri- 
 torial vassalage, and to perpetuate the memory 
 of her evil propensities. It is now avowed 
 that, while the robust district of Maine is to be 
 seated by the side of her truly respectable par- 
 ent, co-ordinate in authority and honor, and is 
 to be dandled into that power and dignity of 
 which she does not stand in need, but which 
 undoubtedly she deserves, the more infantine 
 and feeble Missouri is to be repelled with 
 harshness, and forbidden to come at all, unless 
 with the iron collar of servitude about her neck, 
 instead of the civic crown of republican freedom 
 upon her brows, and is to be doomed forever to 
 leading-strings, unless she will exchange those 
 leading-strings for shackles. 
 
 I am told that you have the power to estab- 
 lish this odious and revolting distinction, and I 
 am referred for the proofs of that power to 
 various parts of the Constitution, but princi- 
 pally to that part of it which authorizes the 
 
68 WILLIAM PINKNEY. 
 
 admission of new States into the Union. I am 
 myself of opinion that it is in that part only 
 that the advocates for this restriction can, with 
 any hope of success, apply for a license to im- 
 pose it ; and that the efforts which have been 
 made to find it in other portions of that instru- 
 ment, are too desperate to require to be en- 
 countered. I shall, however, examine those 
 other portions before I have done, lest it should 
 be supposed by those who have relied upon 
 them, that what I omit to answer I believe to 
 be unanswerable. 
 
 The clause of the Constitution which relates 
 to the admission of new States is in these 
 words : " The Congress may admit new States 
 into this Union," etc., and the advocates for 
 restriction maintain that the use of the word 
 " may " imports discretion to admit or to re- 
 ject ; and that in this discretion is wrapped 
 up another that of prescribing the terms and 
 conditions of admission in case you are willing 
 to admit : " Cujus est dare ejus est disponere." ' 
 I will not for the present inquire whether this 
 involved discretion to dictate the terms of ad- 
 mission belongs to you or not. It is fit that 
 I should first look to the nature and extent , 
 of it. \ 
 
ON THE MISSOURI QUESTION. 69 
 
 I think I may assume that if such a power be 
 anything but nominal, it is much more than 
 adequate to the present object that it is a 
 power of vast expansion, to which human sa- 
 gacity can assign no reasonable limits that it 
 is a capacious reservoir of authority, from which 
 you may take, in all time to come, as occasion 
 may serve, the means of oppression as well as 
 of benefaction. I know that it professes at 
 this moment to be the chosen instrument of 
 protecting mercy, and would win upon us by 
 its benignant smiles ; but I know, too, it can 
 frown and play the tyrant, if it be so disposed. 
 Notwithstanding the softness which it now as- 
 sumes, and the care with which it conceals its 
 giant proportions beneath the deceitful drapery 
 of sentiment, when it next appears before you 
 it may show itself with a sterner countenance 
 and in more awful dimensions. It is, to speak 
 the truth, sir, a power of colossal size if in- 
 deed it be not an abuse of language to call it 
 by the gentle name of a power. Sir, it is a 
 wilderness of power, of which fancy in her hap- 
 piest mood is unable to perceive the far distant 
 and shadowy boundary. Armed with such a 
 power, with religion in one hand and philan- 
 thropy in the other, and followed with a goodly 
 
7Q WILLIAM P1NKNEY. 
 
 train of public and private virtues, you may 
 achieve more conquests over sovereignties not 
 your own than falls to the common lot of even 
 uncommon ambition. By the aid of such a 
 power, skilfully employed, you may " bridge 
 your way " over the Hellespont that separates 
 State legislation from that of Congress ; and 
 you may do so for pretty much the same pur- 
 pose with which Xerxes once bridged his way 
 across the Hellespont that separates Asia from 
 Europe. He did so, in the language of Milton, 
 " the liberties of Greece to yoke." You may 
 do so for the analogous purpose of subjugating 
 and reducing the sovereignties of States, as 
 your taste or convenience may suggest, and 
 fashioning them -to your imperial will. There 
 are those in this House who appear to think, 
 and I doubt not sincerely, that the particular 
 restraint now under consideration is wise, and 
 benevolent, and good ; wise as respects the 
 Union good as respects Missouri benevolent 
 as respects the unhappy victims whom with a 
 novel kindness it would incarcerate in the south, 
 and bless by decay and extirpation. Let all 
 such beware, lest in their desire for the effect 
 which they believe the restriction will produce, 
 they are too easily satisfied that they have the 
 
ON THE MISSOURI QUESTION. J\ 
 
 right to impose it. The moral beauty of the 
 present purpose, or even its political recom- 
 mendations (whatever they may be), can do 
 nothing for a power like this, which claims to 
 prescribe conditions ad libitum, and to be com- 
 petent to this purpose, because it is competent 
 to all. This restriction, if it be not smothered 
 in its birth, will be but a small part of the 
 progeny of the prolific power. It teems with 
 a mighty brood, of which this may be entitled 
 to the distinction of comeliness as well as of 
 primogeniture. The rest may want the boasted 
 loveliness of their predecessor, and be even 
 uglier than " Lapland 7 witches." 
 
 * ***** #8 
 
 I would not discourage authorized legislation 
 upon those kindly, generous, and noble feelings 
 which Providence has given to us for the best 
 of purposes ; but when power to act is under 
 discussion, I will not look to the end in view, 
 lest I should become indifferent to the lawful- 
 ness of the means. Let us discard from this 
 high constitutional question all those extrinsic 
 considerations which have been forced into its 
 discussion. Let us endeavor to approach it 
 with a philosophic impartiality of temper with 
 a sincere desire to ascertain the boundaries of 
 
72 WILLIAM PINKNEY. 
 
 our authority, and a determination to keep our 
 wishes in subjection to our allegiance to the 
 Constitution. 
 
 Slavery, we are told in many a pamphlet, 
 memorial, and speech, with which the press 
 has lately groaned, is a foul blot upon our 
 otherwise immaculate reputation. Let this 
 be conceded yet you are no nearer than be- 
 fore to the conclusion that you possess power 
 which may deal with other subjects as effectu- 
 ally as with this. Slavery, we are further told, 
 with some pomp of metaphor, is a canker at 
 the root of all that is excellent in this republi- 
 can empire, a pestilent disease that is snatching 
 the youthful bloom from its cheek, prostrating 
 its honor and withering its strength. Be it so 
 yet if you have power to medicine 9 to it in the 
 way proposed, and in virtue of the diploma 
 which you claim, you have also power in the 
 distribution of your political alexipharmics to 
 present the deadliest drugs to every territory 
 that would become a State, and bid it drink or 
 remain a colony forever. Slavery, we are also 
 told, is now " rolling onward with a rapid tide 
 towards the boundless regions of the West," 
 threatening to doom them to sterility and sor- 
 row, unless some potent voice can say to it, 
 
ON THE MISSOURI QUESTION. 73 
 
 thus far shalt thou go, and no farther. Slavery 
 engenders pride and indolence in him who com- 
 mands, and inflicts intellectual and moral deg- 
 radation on him who serves. Slavery, in fine, 
 is unchristian and abominable. Sir, I shall not 
 stop to deny that slavery is all this and more ; 
 but I shall not think myself the less authorized 
 to deny that it is for you to stay the course of 
 this dark torrent, by opposing to it a mound 
 raised up by the labors of this portentous dis- 
 cretion on the domain of others a mound which 
 you cannot erect but through the instrumen- 
 tality of a trespass of no ordinary kind not the 
 comparatively innocent trespass that beats down 
 a few blades of grass which the first kind sun or 
 the next refreshing shower may cause to spring 
 again but that which levels with the ground 
 the lordliest trees of the forest, and claims im- 
 mortality for the destruction which it inflicts. 
 
 I shall not, I am sure, be told that I exagger- 
 ate this power. It has been admitted here and 
 elsewhere that I do not. But I want no such 
 concession. It is manifest that as a discretion- 
 ary power it is everything or nothing that its 
 head is in the clouds, or that it is a mere fig- 
 ment of enthusiastic speculation that it has no 
 existence, or that it is an alarming vortex ready 
 
74 WILLIAM PINKNEY. 
 
 to swallow up all such portions of the sover- 
 eignty of an infant State as you may think fit 
 to cast into it as preparatory to the introduction 
 into the union of the miserable residue. No 
 man can contradict me when I say, that if you 
 have this power, you may squeeze down a new- 
 born sovereign State to the size of a pigmy, and 
 then taking it between finger and thumb, stick 
 it into some niche of the Union, and still con- 
 tinue by way of mockery to call it a State in the 
 sense of the Constitution. You may waste it to 
 a shadow, and then introduce it into the society 
 of flesh and blood an object of scorn and de- 
 rision. You may sweat and reduce it to a thing 
 of skin and bone, and then place the ominous 
 skeleton beside the ruddy and healthful mem- 
 bers of the Union, that it may have leisure to 
 mourn the lamentable difference between itself 
 and its companions, to brood over its disastrous 
 promotion, and to seek in justifiable discontent 
 an opportunity for separation, and insurrection, 
 and rebellion. What may you not do by dex- 
 terity and perseverance with this terrific power ? 
 You may give to a new State, in the form of 
 terms which it cannot refuse, (as I shall show 
 you hereafter,) a statute book of a thousand 
 volumes providing not for ordinary cases only, 
 
ON THE MISSOURI QUESTION. 75 
 
 but even for possibilities ; you may lay the yoke, 
 no matter whether light or heavy, upon the 
 necks of the latest posterity ; you may send 
 this searching power into every hamlet for cen- 
 turies to come, by laws enacted in the spirit of 
 prophecy, and regulating all those dear rela- 
 tions of domestic concern which belong to local 
 legislation, and which even local legislation 
 touches with a delicate and sparing hand. This 
 is the first inroad. But will it be the last ? This 
 provision is but a pioneer for others of a more 
 desolating aspect. It is that fatal bridge of 
 which Milton speaks, and when once firmly 
 built, what shall hinder you to pass it when 
 you please for the purpose of plundering power 
 after power at the expense of new States, as 
 you will still continue to call them, and raising 
 up prospective codes irrevocable and immortal, 
 which shall leave to those States the empty 
 shadows of domestic sovereignty, and convert 
 them into petty pageants, in themselves con- 
 temptible, but rendered infinitely more so by 
 the contrast of their humble faculties with the 
 proud and admitted pretensions of those who 
 having doomed them to the inferiority of vas- 
 sals, have condescended to take them into their 
 society and under their protection ? 10 
 
76 WILLIAM PINKNEY. 
 
 " New States may be admitted by the Con- 
 gress into this Union.'' It is objected that the 
 word " may " imports power, not obligation 
 a right to decide a discretion to grant or refuse. 
 
 To this it might be answered that power is 
 duty on many occasions. But let it be con- 
 ceded that it is discretionary. What conse- 
 quence follows ? A power to refuse, in a case 
 like this, does not necessarily involve a power 
 to exact terms. You must look to the result 
 which is the declared object of the power. 
 Whether you will arrive at it, or not, may de- 
 pend on your will ; but you cannot compromise 
 with the result intended and professed. 
 
 What then is the professed result ? To admit 
 a State into this Union. 
 
 What is that Union? A confederation of 
 States equal in sovereignty capable of every- 
 thing which the Constitution does not forbid, or 
 authorize Congress to forbid. It is an equal 
 union, between parties equally sovereign. They 
 were sovereign independently of the Union. 
 The object of the Union was common protec- 
 tion for the exercise of already existing sover- 
 eignty. The parties gave up a portion of that 
 sovereignty to insure the remainder. As far as 
 they gave it up by the common compact they 
 
ON THE MISSOURI QUESTION. 77 
 
 have ceased to be sovereign. The Union pro- 
 vides the means of defending the residue ; and 
 it is into that Union that a new State is to 
 come. By acceding to it, the new State is 
 placed on the same footing with the original 
 States. It accedes for the same purpose, i. e., 
 protection for their unsurrendered sovereignty. 
 If it comes in shorn of its beams crippled and 
 disparaged beyond the original States, it is not 
 into the original Union that it comes. For it 
 is a different sort of Union. The first was Union 
 inter pares. This is a Union between " dis- 
 parates " between giants and a dwarf be- 
 tween power and feebleness between full pro- 
 portioned sovereignties and a miserable image 
 of power a thing which that very Union has 
 shrunk and shrivelled from its just size, instead 
 of preserving it in its true dimensions. 
 
 It is into this Union, i. e., the Union of the 
 Federal Constitution, that you are to admit, or 
 refuse to admit. You can admit into no other. 
 You cannot make the Union, as to the new 
 State, what it is not as to the old ; for then it is 
 not this Union that you open for the entrance 
 of a new party. If you make it enter into a 
 new and additional compact, is it any longer 
 the same Union ? " 
 
78 WILLIAM PINKNEY. 
 
 We are told that admitting a State into the 
 Union is a compact. Yes, but what sort of a 
 compact? A compact that it shall be a mem- 
 ber of the Union, as the Constitution has made 
 it. You cannot new fashion it. You may 
 make a compact to admit, but when admitted 
 the original compact prevails. The Union is a 
 compact, with a provision of political power and 
 agents for the accomplishment of its objects. 
 Vary that compact as to a new State give 
 new energy to that political power so as to 
 make it act with more force upon a new State 
 than upon the old make the will of those 
 agents more effectually the arbiter of the fate 
 of a new State than of the old, and it may be 
 confidently said that the new State has not en- 
 tered into this Union, but into another Union. 
 How far the Union has been varied is another 
 question. But that it has been varied is clear. 
 
 If I am told that by the bill relative to Mis- 
 souri, you do not legislate upon a new State, I 
 answer that you do ; and I answer further that 
 it is immaterial whether you do or not. But it 
 is upon Missouri, as a State, that your terms 
 and conditions are to act. Until Missouri is a 
 State, the terms and conditions are nothing. 
 You legislate in the shape of terms and condi- 
 
ON THE MISSOURI QUESTION. 79 
 
 tions, prospectively and you so legislate upon 
 it that when it comes into the Union it is to be 
 bound by a contract degrading and diminish- 
 ing its sovereignty and is to be stripped of 
 rights which the original parties to the Union 
 did not consent to abandon, and which that 
 Union (so far as depends upon it) takes under 
 its protection and guarantee. 
 
 Is the right to hold slaves a right which 
 Massachusetts enjoys ? If it is, Massachusetts 
 is under this Union in a different character 
 from Missouri. The compact of Union for it, 
 is different from the same compact of Union 
 for Missouri. The power of Congress is dif- 
 ferent everything which depends upon the 
 Union is, in that respect, different. 
 
 But it is immaterial whether you legislate for 
 Missouri as a State or n^t. The effect of your 
 legislation is to bring it into the Union with a 
 portion of its sovereignty taken away. 
 
 But it is a State which you are to admit. 
 What is a State in the sense of the Constitution ? 
 It is not a State in the general but a State as 
 you find it in the Constitution. A State, gen- 
 erally, is a body politic or independent politi- 
 cal society of men. But the State which you 
 are to admit must be more or less than this 
 
80 WILLIAM PINKNEY. 
 
 political entity. What must it be ? Ask the 
 constitution. It shows what it means by a 
 State by reference to the parties to it. It must 
 be such a State as Massachusetts, Virginia, and 
 the other members of the American confeder- 
 acy a State with full sovereignty except as 
 the constitution restricts it. 
 
 * * * * # # *n 
 
 In a word, the whole amount of the argu- 
 ment on the other side is, that you may refuse 
 to admit a new State, and that therefore if you 
 admit, you may prescribe the terms. 
 
 The answer to that argument is that even 
 if you can refuse, you can prescribe no terms 
 which are inconsistent with the act you are to 
 do. You can prescribe no conditions which, if 
 carried into effect, would make the new State 
 less a sovereign State than, under the Union as 
 it stands, it would be. You can prescribe no 
 terms which will make the compact of Union 
 between it and the original States essentially 
 different from that compact among the original 
 States. You may admit, or refuse to admit: 
 but if you admit, you must admit a State in 
 the sense of the Constitution a State with all 
 such sovereignty as belongs to the original 
 parties : and it must be into this Union that 
 
ON THE MISSOURI QUESTION. 8 1 
 
 you are to admit it, not into a Union of your 
 own dictating, formed out of the existing Union 
 by qualifications and new compacts, altering its 
 character and effect, and making it fall short of 
 its protecting energy in reference to the new 
 State, whilst it acquires an energy of another 
 sort the energy of restraint and destruction. 
 
 * * # # -X- * #13 
 
 One of the most signal errors with which the 
 argument on the other side has abounded, is 
 this of considering the proposed restriction as 
 if levelled at the introduction or establishment 
 of slavery. And hence the vehement declama- 
 tion, which, among other things, has informed 
 us that slavery originated in fraud or violence. 
 
 The truth is, that the restriction has no rela- 
 tion, real or pretended, to the right of making 
 slaves of those who are free, or of introducing 
 slavery where it does not already exist. It ap- 
 plies to those who are admitted to be already 
 slaves, and who (with their posterity) would 
 continue to be slaves if they should remain 
 where they are at present; and to a place 
 where slavery already exists by the local law. 
 Their civil condition will not be altered by their 
 removal from Virginia, or Carolina, to Missouri. 
 They will not be more slaves than they now 
 
 VOL. II. 6 
 
82 WILLIAM PINKNE Y. 
 
 are. Their abode, indeed, will be different, but 
 their bondage the same. Their numbers may 
 possibly be augmented by the diffusion, and I 
 think they will. But this can only happen be- 
 cause their hardships will be mitigated, and 
 their comforts increased. The checks to popu- 
 lation, which exist in the older States, will 
 be diminished. The restriction, therefore does 
 not prevent the establishment of slavery, either 
 with reference to persons or place ; but simply 
 inhibits the removal from place to place (the 
 law in each being the same) of a slave, or make 
 his emancipation the consequence of that re- 
 moval. It acts professedly merely on slavery 
 as it exists, and thus acting restrains its present 
 lawful effects. That slavery, like many other 
 human institutions, originated in fraud or vio- 
 lence, may be conceded : but, however it origi- 
 nated, it is established among us, and no man 
 seeks a further establishment of it by new 
 importations of freemen to be converted into 
 slaves. On the contrary, all are anxious to 
 mitigate its evils, by all the means within the 
 reach of the appropriate authority, the domestic 
 legislatures of the different States. 
 
 * * # # * * #i 
 Of the declaration of our independence, which 
 
ON THE MISSOURI QUESTION. 83 
 
 has also been quoted in support of the perilous 
 doctrines now urged upon us, I need not now 
 speak at large. I have shown on a former oc- 
 casion how idle it is to rely upon that instru- 
 ment for such a purpose, and I will not fatigue 
 you by mere repetition. The self-evident truths 
 announced in the Declaration of Independence 
 are not truths at all, if taken literally ; and the 
 practical conclusions contained in the same 
 passage of that declaration prove that they 
 were never designed to be so received. 
 
 The articles of confederation contain nothing 
 on the subject ; whilst the actual Constitution 
 recognizes the legal existence of slavery by 
 various provisions. The power of prohibiting 
 the slave trade is involved in that of regulating 
 commerce, but this is coupled with an express 
 inhibition to the exercise of it for twenty years. 
 How then can that Constitution which expressly 
 permits the importation of slaves authorize the 
 National Government to set on foot a crusade 
 against slavery ? 
 
 The clause respecting fugitive slaves is 
 affirmative and active in its effects. It is a 
 direct sanction and positive protection of the 
 right of the master to the services of his slave 
 as derived under the local laws of the States. 
 
84 WILLIAM PINKNEY. 
 
 The phraseology in which it is wrapped up 
 still leaves the intention clear, and the words, 
 " persons held to service or labor in one State 
 under the laws thereof," have always been in- 
 terpreted to extend to the case of slaves, in the 
 various acts of Congress which have been passed 
 to give efficacy to the provision, and in the 
 judicial application of those laws. So also in 
 the clause prescribing the ratio of representa- 
 tion the phrase, " three-fifths of all other per- 
 sons," is equivalent to slaves, or it means 
 nothing. And yet we are told that those who 
 are acting under a Constitution which sanctions 
 the existence of slavery in those States which 
 choose to tolerate it, are at liberty to hold that 
 no law can sanction its existence." 
 
 It is idle to make the rightfulness of an act 
 the measure of sovereign power. The distinc- 
 tion between sovereign power and the moral 
 right to exercise it has always been recognized. 
 All political power may be abused, but is it to 
 stop where abuse may begin ? The power of 
 declaring war is a power of vast capacity for 
 mischief, and capable of inflicting the most 
 wide-spread desolation. But it is given to 
 Congress without stint and without measure. 
 Is a citizen, or are the courts of justice to in- 
 
ON THE MISSOURI QUESTION. 85 
 
 quire whether that, or any other law, is just, 
 before they obey or execute it ? And are there 
 any degrees of injustice which will withdraw 
 from sovereign power the capacity of making a 
 given law? 
 
 * * * * * #16 
 
 The power is " to admit new States into this 
 Union," and it may be safely conceded that 
 here is discretion to admit or refuse. The 
 question is, what must we do if we do any- 
 thing? What must we admit, and into what ? 
 The answer is a State and into this Union. 
 
 The distinction between Federal rights and 
 local rights, is an idle distinction. Because the 
 new State acquires Federal rights, it is not, 
 therefore, in this Union. The Union is a com- 
 pact ; and is it an equal party to that compact, 
 because it has equal Federal rights ? 
 
 How is the Union formed? By equal con- 
 tributions of power. Make one member sacri- 
 fice more than another, and it becomes unequal. 
 The compact is of two parts : 
 
 1. The thing obtained Federal rights. 
 
 2. The price paid local sovereignty. 
 
 You may disturb the balance of the Union, 
 either by diminishing the thing acquired, or 
 increasing the sacrifice paid. 
 
86 WILLIAM PINKNEY. 
 
 What were the purposes of coming into the 
 Union among the original States ? The States 
 were originally sovereign without limit, as to 
 foreign and domestic concerns. But being in- 
 capable of protecting themselves singly, they 
 entered into the Union to defend themselves 
 against foreign violence. The domestic con- 
 cerns of the people were not, in general, to be 
 acted on by it. The security of the power, of 
 managing them by domestic legislature, is one 
 of the great objects of the Union. The Union 
 is a means, not an end. By requiring greater 
 sacrifices of domestic power, the end is sacri- 
 ficed to the means. Suppose the surrender of 
 all, or nearly all, the domestic powers of legis- 
 lation were required ; the means would there 
 have swallowed up the end. 
 
 The argument that the compact may be 
 enforced, shows that the Federal predicament 
 changed. The power of the Union not only 
 acts on persons or citizens, but on the faculty 
 of the government, and restrains it in a way 
 which the Constitution nowhere authorizes. 
 This new obligation takes away a right which 
 is expressly " reserved to the people or the 
 States," since it is nowhere granted to the 
 government of the Union. You cannot do 
 
ON THE MISSOURI QUESTION. 8? 
 
 indirectly what you cannot do directly. It is 
 said that this Union is competent to make 
 compacts. Who doubts it ? But can you 
 make this compact ? I insist that you cannot 
 make it, because it is repugnant to the thing to 
 be done. 
 
 The effect of such a compact would be to 
 produce that inequality in the Union, to which 
 the Constitution, in all its provisions, is adverse. 
 Everything in it looks to equality among the 
 members of the Union. Under it you cannot 
 produce inequality. Nor can you get before- 
 hand of the Constitution, and do it by antici- 
 pation. Wait until a State is in the Union, 
 and you cannot do it ; yet it is only upon the 
 State in the Union that what you do begins 
 to act. 
 
 But it seems that, although the proposed 
 restrictions may not be justified by the clause 
 of the Constitution which gives power to 
 admit new States into the Union, separately 
 considered, there are other parts of the Consti- 
 tution which, combined with that clause, will 
 warrant it. And first, we are informed that 
 there is a clause in this instrument which de- 
 clares that Congress shall guarantee to every 
 State a republican form of government ; that 
 
88 WILLIAM PINKNEY. 
 
 slavery and such a form of government are in- 
 compatible ; and, finally, as a conclusion from 
 these premises, that Congress not only have a 
 right, but are bound to exclude slavery from a 
 new State. Here again, sir, there is an edify- 
 ing inconsistency between the argument and 
 the measure which it professes to vindicate. 
 By the argument it is maintained that Mis- 
 souri cannot have a republican form of govern- 
 ment, and at the same time tolerate negro 
 slavery. By the measure it is admitted that 
 Missouri may tolerate slavery, as to persons 
 already in bondage there, and be nevertheless 
 fit to be received into the Union. What sort 
 of constitutional mandate is this which can 
 thus be made to bend and truckle and com- 
 promise as if it were a simple rule of expe- 
 diency that might admit of exceptions upon 
 motives of countervailing expediency. There 
 can be no such pliancy in the peremptory pro- 
 visions of the Constitution. They cannot be 
 obeyed by moieties and violated in the same 
 ratio. They must be followed out to their full 
 extent, or treated with that decent neglect 
 which has at least the merit of forbearing to 
 render contumacy obtrusive by an ostentatious 
 display of the very duty which we in part 
 
ON THE MISSOURI QUESTION. 89 
 
 abandon. If the decalogue could be observed 
 in this casuistical manner, we might be grievous 
 sinners, and yet be liable to no reproach. We 
 might persist in all our habitual irregularities, 
 and still be spotless. We might, for example, 
 continue to covet our neighbors' goods, pro- 
 vided they were the same neighbors whose 
 goods we had before coveted and so of all 
 the other commandments. 
 
 Will the gentlemen tell us that it is the 
 quantity of slaves, not the quality of slavery, 
 which takes from a government the republican 
 form ? Will they tell us (for they have not yet 
 told us) that there are constitutional grounds 
 (to say nothing of common sense) upon which 
 the slavery which now exists in Missouri may 
 be reconciled with a republican form of gov- 
 ernment, while any addition to the number of 
 its slaves (the quality of slavery remaining the 
 same) from the other States, will be repugnant 
 to that form, and metamorphose it into some 
 nondescript government disowned by the Con- 
 stitution ? They cannot have recourse to the 
 treaty of 1803 f r such a distinction, since in- 
 dependently of what I have before observed on 
 that head, the gentlemen have contended that 
 the treaty has nothing to do with the matter. 
 
90 WILLIAM PINKNEY. 
 
 They have cut themselves off from all chance 
 of a convenient distinction in or out of that 
 treaty, by insisting that slavery beyond the old 
 United States is rejected by the Constitution, 
 and by the law of God as discoverable by the 
 aid of either reason or revelation ; and more- 
 over that the treaty does not include the case, 
 and if it did could not make it better. They 
 have, therefore, completely discredited their 
 own theory by their own practice, and left us 
 no theory worthy of being seriously contro- 
 verted. This peculiarity in reasoning of giving 
 out a universal principle, and coupling with it 
 a practical concession that it is wholly fal- 
 lacious, has indeed run through the greater 
 part of the arguments on the other side ; but it 
 is not, as I think, the more imposing on that 
 account, or the less liable to the criticism which 
 I have here bestowed upon it. 
 
 % % * * # # #i 
 But let us proceed to take a rapid glance at 
 the reasons which have been assigned for this 
 notion that involuntary servitude and a repub- 
 lican form of government are perfect anti- 
 pathies. The gentleman from New Hampshire 
 has defined a republican government to be 
 that in which all the men participate in its 
 
ON THE MISSOURI QUESTION. 91 
 
 power and privileges ; from whence it follows 
 that where there are slaves, it can have no 
 existence. A definition is no proof, however, 
 and even if it be dignified (as I think it was) 
 with the name of a maxim, the matter is not 
 much mended. It is Lord Bacon who says 
 " That nothing is so easily made as a maxim " ; 
 and certainly a definition is manufactured with 
 equal facility. A political maxim is the work 
 of induction, and cannot stand against experi- 
 ence, or stand on anything but experience. 
 But this maxim, or definition, or whatever 
 else it may be, sets facts at defiance. If you 
 go back to antiquity, you will obtain no 
 countenance for this hypothesis ; and if you 
 look at home you will gain still less. I have 
 read that Sparta, and Rome, and Athens, and 
 many others of the ancient family, were re- 
 publics. They were so in form undoubtedly 
 the last approaching nearer to a perfect de- 
 mocracy than any other government which 
 has yet been known in the world. Judging of 
 them also by their fruits, they were of the high- 
 est order of republics. Sparta could scarcely 
 be any other than a republic, when a Spartan 
 matron could say to her son just marching to 
 battle, " Return victorious, or return no more." 
 
92 WILLIAM PINKNEY. 
 
 It was the unconquerable spirit of liberty, nur- 
 tured by republican habits and institutions, 
 that illustrated the pass of Thermopylae. Yet 
 slavery was not only tolerated in Sparta, but 
 was established by one of the fundamental laws 
 of Lycurgus, having for its object the encour- 
 agement of that very spirit. Attica was full of 
 slaves yet the love of liberty was its character- 
 istic. What else was it that foiled the whole 
 power of Persia at Marathon and Salamis? 
 What other soil than that which the genial sun 
 of republican freedom illuminated and warmed, 
 could have produced such men as Leonidas and 
 Miltiades, Themistocles and Epaminondas? Of 
 Rome it would be superfluous to speak at large. 
 It is sufficient to name the mighty mistress of 
 the world, before Sylla gave the first stab to 
 her liberties and the great dictator accom- 
 plished their final ruin, to be reminded of the 
 practicability of union between civil slavery 
 and an ardent love of liberty cherished by 
 republican establishments. 
 
 If we return home for instruction upon this 
 point, we perceive that same union exemplified 
 in many a State, in which " Liberty has a temple 
 in every house, an altar in every heart," while 
 involuntary servitude is seen in every direction* 
 
ON THE MISSOURI QUESTION. 93 
 
 Is it denied that those States possess a republi- 
 can form of government ? If it is, why does 
 our power of correction sleep ? Why is the 
 constitutional guaranty suffered to be inactive ? 
 Why am I permitted to fatigue you, as the re- 
 presentative of a slaveholding State, with the 
 discussion of the " nugae canorae " (for so I 
 think them) that have been forced into this 
 debate contrary to all the remonstrances of 
 taste and prudence ? Do gentlemen perceive 
 the consequences to which their arguments 
 must lead if they are of any value ? Do they 
 reflect that they lead to emancipation in the 
 old United States or to an exclusion of Dela- 
 ware, Maryland, and all the South, and a great 
 portion of the West from the Union ? My 
 honorable friend from Virginia has no business 
 here, if this disorganizing creed be anything 
 but the production of a heated brain. The 
 State to which I belong, must " perform a lus- 
 tration " must purge and purify herself from 
 the feculence of civil slavery, and emulate the 
 States of the North in their zeal for throwing 
 down the gloomy idol which we are said to 
 worship, before her senators can have any title 
 to appear in this high assembly. It will be in 
 vain to urge that the old United States are ex- 
 
94 WILLIAM PINKNEY. 
 
 ceptions to the rule or rather (as the gentle- 
 men express it), that they have no disposition 
 to apply the rule to them. There can be no 
 exceptions by implication only, to such a rule ; 
 and expressions which justify the exemption of 
 the old States by inference, will justify the like 
 exemption of Missouri, unless they point ex- 
 clusively to them, as I have shown they do not. 
 The guarded manner, too, in which some of 
 the gentlemen have occasionally expressed 
 themselves on this subject, is somewhat alarm- 
 ing. They have no disposition to meddle with 
 slavery in the old United States. Perhaps not 
 but who shall answer for their successors ? 
 Who shall furnish a pledge that the principle 
 once ingrafted into the Constitution, will not 
 grow, and spread, and fructify, and overshadow 
 the whole land ? It is the natural office of such 
 a principle to wrestle with slavery, wheresoever 
 it finds it. New States, colonized by the apos- 
 tles of this principle, will enable it to set on 
 foot a fanatical crusade against all who still 
 continue to tolerate it, although no practica- 
 ble means are pointed out by which they can 
 get rid of it consistently with their own safety. 
 At any rate, a present forbearing disposition, in 
 a few or in many, is not a security upon which 
 
ON THE MISSOURI QUESTION. 95 
 
 much reliance can be placed upon a subject as 
 to which so many selfish interests and ardent 
 feelings are connected with the cold calcula- 
 tions of policy. Admitting, however, that the 
 old United States are in no danger from this 
 principle why is it so ? There can be no 
 other answer (which these zealous enemies of 
 slavery can use) than that the Constitution 
 recognizes slavery as existing or capable of ex- 
 isting in those States. The Constitution, then, 
 admits that slavery and a republican form of 
 government are not incongruous. It associates 
 and binds them up together and repudiates this 
 wild imagination which the gentlemen have 
 pressed upon us with such an air of triumph. 
 But the Constitution does more, as I have here- 
 tofore proved. It concedes that slavery may 
 exist in a new State, as well as in an old one 
 since the language in which it recognizes slavery 
 comprehends new States as well as actual. I 
 trust then that I shall be forgiven if I suggest, 
 that no eccentricity in argument can be more 
 trying to human patience, than a formal asser- 
 tion that a constitution, to which slave-holding 
 States were the most numerous parties, in 
 which slaves are treated as property as well as 
 persons, and provision is made for the security 
 
g6 WILLIAM PINKNEY. 
 
 of that property, and even for an augmentation 
 of it by a temporary importation from Africa, 
 with a clause commanding Congress to guar- 
 antee a republican form of government to those 
 very States, as well as to others, authorizes you 
 to determine that slavery and a republican form 
 of government cannot coexist. 
 
 But if a republican form of government is 
 that in which all the men have a share in the 
 public power, the slave-holding States will not 
 alone retire from the Union. The constitu- 
 tions of some of the other States do not sanc- 
 tion universal suffrage, or universal eligibility. 
 They require citizenship, and age, and a certain 
 amount of property, to give a title to vote or 
 to be voted for ; and they who have not those 
 qualifications are just as much disfranchised, 
 with regard to the government and its power, 
 as if they were slaves. They have civil rights 
 indeed (and so have slaves in a less degree ; ) 
 but they have no share in the government. 
 Their province is to obey the laws, not to assist 
 in making them. All such States must there- 
 fore be forisfamiliated with Virginia and the 
 rest, or change tneir system. For the Consti- 
 tution being absolutely silent on those subjects, 
 will afford them no protection. The Union 
 
ON THE MISSOURI QUESTION. 97 
 
 might thus be reduced from an Union to an 
 unit. Who does not see that such conclusions 
 flow from false notions that the true theory 
 of a republican government is mistaken and 
 that in such a government rights, political and 
 civil, may be qualified by the fundamental law, 
 upon such inducements as the freemen of the 
 country deem sufficient ? That civil rights 
 may be qualified as well as political, is proved 
 by a thousand examples. Minors, resident 
 aliens, who are in a course of naturalization 
 the other sex, whether maids, or wives, or 
 widows, furnish sufficient practical proofs of 
 this. 
 
 # # * # # # *" 
 
 We are next invited to study that clause of 
 the Constitution which relates to the migration 
 or importation, before the year 1808, of such 
 persons as any of the States then existing 
 should think proper to admit. It runs thus : 
 " The migration or importation of such persons 
 as any of the States now existing shall think 
 proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the 
 Congress prior to the year one thousand eight 
 hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be 
 imposed on such importation not exceeding 
 ten dollars for each person." 
 
 VOL. II. 7 
 
98 WILLIAM PINKNEY. 
 
 It is said that this clause empowers Congress, 
 after the year 1808, to prohibit the passage of 
 slaves from State to State, and the word " mi- 
 gration " is relied upon for that purpose. 
 
 * # ** # * #18 
 
 Whatever may be the latitude in which the 
 word " persons " is capable of being received, it 
 is not denied that the word " importation " in- 
 dicates a bringing in from a jurisdiction foreign 
 to the United States. The two termini of 
 the importation, here spoken of, are a foreign 
 country and the American Union the first the 
 terminus a quo, the second the terminus ad 
 quern. The word migration stands in simple 
 connexion with it, and of course is left to the 
 full influence of that connection. The natural 
 conclusion is, that the same termini belong 
 to each, or, in other words, that if the importa- 
 tion must be abroad, so also must be the mi- 
 gration no other termini being assigned to 
 the one which are not manifestly characteristic 
 of the other. This conclusion is so obvious, 
 that to repel it, the word migration requires, as 
 an appendage, explanatory phraseology, giving 
 to it a different beginning from that of importa- 
 tion. To justify the conclusion that it was in- 
 tended to mean a removal from State to State, 
 
ON THE MISSOURI QUESTION. 99 
 
 each within the sphere of the constitution in 
 which it is used, the addition of the words from 
 one to another State in this Union, were indis- 
 pensable. By the omission of these words, the 
 word " migration " is compelled to take every 
 sense of which it is fairly susceptible from its 
 immediate neighbor, " importation." In this 
 view it means a coming, as " importation" means 
 a bringing, from a foreign jurisdiction into the 
 United States. That it is susceptible of this 
 meaning, nobody doubts. 1 go further. It can 
 have no other meaning in the place in which it 
 is found. It is found in the Constitution of this 
 Union which, when it speaks of migration as 
 of a general concern, must be supposed to have 
 in view a migration into the domain which 
 itself embraces as a general government. 
 
 Migration, then, even if it comprehends 
 slaves, does not mean the removal of them from 
 State to State, but means the coming of slaves 
 from places beyond their limits and their 
 power. And if this be so, the gentlemen gain 
 nothing for their argument by showing that 
 slaves were the objects of this term. 
 
 An honorable gentleman from Rhode Island, 1 * 
 whose speech was distinguished for its ability, 
 and for an admirable force of reasoning, as well 
 
100 WILLIAM PINKNEY. 
 
 as by the moderation and mildness of its spirit, 
 informed us, with less discretion than in general 
 he exhibited, that the word " migration " was 
 introduced into this clause at the instance of 
 some of the Southern States, who wished by its 
 instrumentality to guard against a prohibition 
 by Congress of the passage into those States of 
 slaves from other States. He has given us no 
 authority for this supposition, and it is, there- 
 fore, a gratuitous one. How improbable it is, 
 a moment's reflection will convince him. The 
 African slave trade being open during the 
 whole of the time to which the entire clause in 
 question referred, such a purpose could scarcely 
 be entertained ; but if it had been entertained, 
 and there was believed to be a necessity for 
 securing it, by a restriction upon the power of 
 Congress to interfere with it, is it possible that 
 they who deemed it important, would have 
 contented themselves with a vague restraint, 
 which was calculated to operate in almost any 
 other manner than that which they desired ? 
 If fear and jealousy, such as the honorable 
 gentleman has described, had dictated this 
 provision, a better term than that of " migra- 
 tion," simple and unqualified, and joined, too, 
 with the word " importation," would have 
 
ON THE MISSOURI QUESTION. IOI 
 
 been found to tranquilize those fears and 
 satisfy that jealousy. Fear and jealousy are 
 watchful, and are rarely seen to accept a 
 security short of their object, and less rarely 
 to shape that security, of their own accord, in 
 such a way as to make it no security at all. 
 They always seek an explicit guaranty ; and 
 that this is not such a guaranty this debate 
 has proved, if it has proved nothing else. 90 
 
WENDELL PHILLIPS,* 
 
 OF MASSACHUSETTS. 1 
 
 (BORN l8ll, DIED 1884.) 
 
 ON THE MURDER OF LOVEJOY ; FANEUIL HALL, 
 BOSTON, DECEMBER 8, 1837." 
 
 MR. CHAIRMAN : 
 
 We have met for the freest discussion of 
 these resolutions, and the events which gave rise 
 to them. [Cries of "Question," " Hear him," 
 " Go on," u No gagging," etc.] I hope I shall 
 be permitted to express my surprise at the 
 sentiments of the last speaker, surprise not only 
 at such sentiments from such a man, but at the 
 applause they have received within these walls. 
 A comparison has been drawn between the 
 events of the Revolution and the tragedy at 
 Alton. We have heard it asserted here, in 
 Faneuil Hall, that Great Britain had a right to 
 tax the colonies, and we have heard the mob at 
 Alton, the drunken murderers of Lovejoy, com- 
 pared to those patriot fathers who threw the 
 
 * For notes on Phillips, see Appendix, p. 366 
 102 
 
THE MURDER OF LOVEJOY. 1 03 
 
 tea overboard ! Fellow citizens, is this Faneuil 
 Hall doctrine? [" No, no."] The mob at Al- 
 ton were met to wrest from a citizen his just 
 rights met to resist the laws. We have been 
 told that our fathers did the same ; and the 
 glorious mantle of Revolutionary precedent has 
 been thrown over the mobs of our day. To 
 make out their title to such defence, the gentle- 
 man says that the British Parliament had a right 
 to tax these colonies. It is manifest that, without 
 this, his parallel falls to the ground, for Lovejoy 
 had stationed himself within constitutional bul- 
 warks. He was not only defending the free- 
 dom of the press, but he was under his own 
 roof, in arms with the sanction of the civil au- 
 thority. 1 The men who assailed him went 
 against and over the laws. The mob, as the 
 gentleman terms it mob, forsooth ! certainly 
 we sons of the tea-spillers are a marvellously 
 patient generation ! the " orderly mob " which 
 assembled in the Old South to destroy the tea, 
 were met to resist, not the laws, but illegal en- 
 actions. Shame on the American who calls the 
 tea tax and stamp act laws ! Our fathers re- 
 sisted, not the King's prerogative, but the 
 King's usurpation. To find any other account, 
 you must read our Revolutionary history up- 
 
104 WENDELL PHILLIPS. 
 
 side down. Our State archives are loaded 
 with arguments of John Adams to prove the 
 taxes laid by the British Parliament unconstitu- 
 tional beyond its power. It was not until 
 this was made out that the men of New Eng- 
 land rushed to arms. The arguments of the 
 Council Chamber and the House of Represen- 
 tatives preceded and sanctioned the contest. 
 To draw the conduct of our ancestors into a 
 precedent for mobs, for a right to resist laws we 
 ourselves have enacted, is an insult to their 
 memory. The difference between the excite- 
 ments of those days and our own, which the 
 gentleman in kindness to the latter has over- 
 looked, is simply this : the men of that day 
 went for the right, as secured by the laws. 
 They were the people rising to sustain the laws 
 and constitution of the Province. The rioters 
 of our days go for their own wills, right or 
 wrong. Sir, when I heard the gentleman lay 
 down principles which place the murderers of 
 Alton side by side with Otis and Hancock, 
 with Quincy and Adams, I thought those pic- 
 tured lips [pointing to the portraits in the 
 Hall] would have broken into voice to rebuke 
 the recreant American the slanderer of the 
 dead. The gentleman said that he should sink 
 
THE MURDER OF LOVE JOY. 10$ 
 
 into insignificance if he dared to gainsay the 
 principles of these resolutions. Sir, for the 
 sentiments he has uttered, on soil consecrated 
 by the prayers of Puritans and the blood of 
 patriots, the earth should have yawned and 
 swallowed him up. 4 
 
 [By this time, the uproar in the Hall had risen so high that 
 the speech was suspended for a short time. Applause and 
 counter applause, cries of " Take that back," " Make him 
 take back recreant," " He sha'n't go on till he takes it back," 
 and counter cries of " Phillips or nobody," continued until the 
 pleadings of well-known citizens had somewhat restored order, 
 when Mr. Phillips resumed.] 
 
 Fellow citizens, I cannot take back my words. 
 Surely the Attorney-General, so long and so 
 well known here, needs not the aid of your 
 hisses against one so young as I am my voice 
 never before heard within these walls ! * * * * 
 
 I must find some fault with the statement 
 which has been made of the events at Al- 
 ton. It has been asked why Lovejoy and 
 his friends did not appeal to the executive 
 trust their defence to the police of the city? It 
 has been hinted that, from hasty and ill-judged 
 excitement, the men within the building pro- 
 voked a quarrel, and that he fell in the course 
 of it, one mob resisting another. Recollect, 
 sir, that they did act with the approbation and 
 
106 WENDELL PHILLIPS. 
 
 sanction of the Mayor. In strict truth, there 
 was no executive to appeal to for protection. 
 The Mayor acknowledged that he could not 
 protect them. They asked him if it was law- 
 ful for them to defend themselves. He told 
 them it was, and sanctioned their assembling in 
 arms to do so. They were not, then, a mob ; 
 they were not merely citizens defending their 
 own property; they were in some sense the 
 posse comitatus, adopted for the occasion into 
 the police of the city, acting under the order 
 of a magistrate. It was civil authority resist* 
 ing lawless violence. Where, then, was the 
 imprudence ? Is the doctrine to be sustained 
 here that it is imprudent for men to aid magis- 
 trates in executing the laws ? 
 
 Men are continually asking each other, Had 
 Lovejoy a right to resist ? Sir, I protest 
 against the question instead of answering it. 
 Lovejoy did not resist, in the sense they mean. 
 He did not throw himself back on the natural 
 right of self-defence. He did not cry anarchy, 
 and let slip the dogs of civil war, careless of the 
 horrors which would follow. Sir, as I under- 
 stand this affair, it was not an individual pro- 
 tecting his property ; it was not one body of 
 armed men resisting another, and making the 
 
THE MURDER OF LOVEfOY. IO/ 
 
 streets of a peaceful city run blood with their 
 contentions. It did not bring back the scenes 
 in some old Italian cities, where family met 
 family, and faction met faction, and mutually 
 trampled the laws under foot. No ! the men 
 in that house were regularly enrolled, under the 
 sanction of the Mayor. There being no militia 
 in Alton, about seventy men were enrolled with 
 the approbation of the Mayor. These relieved 
 each other every other night. About thirty 
 men were in arms on the night of the sixth, 
 when the press was landed. The next evening, 
 it was not thought necessary to summon more 
 than half that number; among these was 
 Lovejoy. It was, therefore, you perceive, sir, 
 the police of the city resisting rioters civil 
 government breasting itself to the shock of law- 
 less men. 
 
 Here is no question about the right of self- 
 defence. It is in fact simply this: Has the 
 civil magistrate a right to put down a riot ? 
 
 Some persons seem to imagine that anarchy 
 existed at Alton from the commencement of 
 these disputes. Not at all. " No one of us," 
 says an eyewitness and a comrade of Lovejoy, 
 " has taken up arms during these disturbances 
 but at the command of the Mayor." Anarchy 
 
IO8 WENDELL PHILLIPS. 
 
 did not settle down on that devoted city till 
 Lovejoy breathed his last. Till then the law, 
 represented in his person, sustained itself 
 against its foes. When he fell, civil authority 
 was trampled under foot. He had " planted 
 himself on his constitutional rights," appealed 
 to the laws, claimed the protection of the 
 civil authority, taken refuge under " the broad 
 shield of the Constitution. When through that 
 he was pierced and fell, he fell but one sufferer 
 in a common catastrophe." He took refuge 
 under the banner of liberty amid its folds ; 
 and when he fell, its glorious stars and stripes, 
 the emblem of free institutions, around which 
 cluster so many heart-stirring memories, were 
 blotted out in the martyr's blood. 
 
 It has been stated, perhaps inadvertently, 
 that Lovejoy or his comrades fired first. This 
 is denied by those who have the best means of 
 knowing. Guns were first fired by the mob. 
 After being twice fired on, those within the 
 building consulted together and deliberately 
 returned the fire. But suppose they did fire 
 first. They had a right so to do ; not only the 
 right which every citizen has to defend himself, 
 but the further right which every civil officer 
 has to resist violence. Even if Lovejoy fired 
 
THE MURDER OF LOVEJOY, IOO, 
 
 the first gun, it would not lessen his claim to 
 our sympathy, or destroy his title to be consid- 
 ered a martyr in defence of a free press. The 
 question now is, Did he act within the constitu- 
 tion and the laws? The men who fell in State 
 Street, on the 5th of March, 1770, did more 
 than Lovejoy is charged with. 6 They were the 
 first assailants upon some slight quarrel, they 
 pelted the troops with every missile within 
 reach. Did this bate one jot of the eulogy 
 with which Hancock and Warren hallowed their 
 memory, hailing them as the first martyrs in 
 the cause of American liberty? If, sir, I had 
 adopted what are called Peace principles, I 
 might lament the circumstances of this case. 
 But all you who believe as I do, in the right 
 and duty of magistrates to execute the laws, 
 join with me and brand as base hypocrisy the 
 conduct of those who assemble year after year 
 on the 4th of July to fight over the battles of 
 the Revolution, and yet " damn with faint 
 praise " or load with obloquy, the memory of 
 this man who shed his blood in defence of life, 
 liberty, property, and the freedom of the press ! 
 Throughout that terrible night I find nothing 
 to regret but this, that, within the limits of our 
 country, civil authority should have been so pros- 
 
IIO WENDELL PHILLIPS. 
 
 trated as to oblige a citizen to arm in his own 
 defence, and to arm in vain. The gentleman 
 says Lovejoy was presumptuous and imprudent 
 he " died as the fool dieth." And a rever- 
 end clergyman of the city tells us that no citi- 
 zen has a right to publish opinions disagreeable 
 to the community! 7 If any mob follows such 
 publication, on him rests its guilt. He must 
 wait, forsooth, till the people come up to it and 
 agree with him ! This libel on liberty goes on 
 to say that the want of right to speak as we 
 think is an evil inseparable from republican in- 
 stitutions ! If this be so, what are they worth? 
 Welcome the despotism of the Sultan, where 
 one knows what he may publish and what he 
 may not, rather than the tyranny of this many- 
 headed monster, the mob, where we know not 
 what we may do or say, till some fellow-citizen 
 has tried it, and paid for the lesson with his life. 
 This clerical absurdity chooses as a check for 
 the abuses of the press, not the law, but the 
 dread of a mob. By so doing, it deprives not 
 only the individual and the minority of their 
 rights, but the majority also, since the expres- 
 sion of their opinion may sometime provoke 
 disturbances from the minority. A few men 
 may make a mob as well as many. The major- 
 
THE MURDER OF LOVEJOY. Ill 
 
 ity then, have no right, as Christian men, to 
 utter their sentiments, if by any possibility it 
 may lead to a mob! Shades of Hugh Peters 
 and John Cotton, save us from such pulpits ! 8 
 
 Imprudent to defend the liberty of the press ! 
 Why? Because the defence was unsuccessful ? 
 Does success gild crime into patriotism, and the 
 want of it change heroic self-devotion to im- 
 prudence ? Was Hampden imprudent when he 
 drew the sword and threw away the scabbard ? 
 Yet he, judged by that single hour, was unsuc- 
 cessful. After a short exile, the race he hated 
 sat again upon the throne. 
 
 Imagine yourself present when the first news 
 of Bunker Hill battle reached a New England 
 town. The tale would have run thus: "The 
 patriots are routed, the redcoats victorious, 
 Warren lies dead upon the field." With what 
 scorn would that Tory have been received, who 
 should have charged Warren with imprudence ! 
 who should have said that, bred a physician, 
 he was " out of place " in that battle, and "died 
 as the fool dieth" How would the intimation 
 have been received, that Warren and his asso- 
 ciates should have merited a better time ? But 
 if success be indeed the only criterion of pru- 
 dence, Respice finem, wait till the end! 
 
112 WENDELL PHILLIPS. 
 
 Presumptuous to assert the freedom of the 
 press on American ground ! Is the assertion of 
 such freedom before the age ? So much before 
 the age as to leave one no right to make it 
 because it displeases the community? Who in- 
 vents this libel on his country ? It is this very 
 thing which entitles Lovejoy to greater praise. 
 The disputed right which provoked the Revo- 
 lution taxation without representation is far 
 beneath that for which he died. [Here there 
 was a general expression of strong disapproba- 
 tion.] One word, gentlemen. As much as 
 thought is better than money, so much is the 
 cause in which Lovejoy died nobler than a 
 mere question of taxes. James Otis thundered 
 in this hall when the King did but touch his 
 pocket. Imagine, if you can, his indignant elo- 
 quence had England offered to put a gag upon 
 his lips. The question that stirred the Revolu- 
 tion touched our civil interests. This concerns 
 us not only as citizens, but as immortal beings. 
 Wrapped up in its fate, saved or lost with it, 
 are not only the voice of the statesman, but 
 the instructions of the pulpit and the progress 
 of our faith. 
 
 The clergy, " marvellously out of place " 
 where free speech is battled for liberty of 
 
THE MURDER OF LOVE JOY. 113 
 
 speech on national sins ! Does the gentleman 
 remember that freedom to preach was first 
 gained, dragging in its train freedom to print ? 
 I thank the clergy here present, as I reverence 
 their predecessors, who did not so far forget 
 their country in their immediate profession as 
 to deem it duty to separate themselves from 
 the struggle of '76 the Mayhews and Coopers, 9 
 who remembered that they were citizens before 
 they were clergymen. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, from the bottom of my heart 
 I thank that brave little band at Alton for re- 
 sisting. We must remember that Lovejoy had 
 fled from city to city, suffered the destruction 
 of three presses patiently. At length he took 
 counsel with friends, men of character, of tried 
 integrity, of wide views, of Christian principle. 
 They thought the crisis had come ; it was full 
 time to assert the laws. They saw around them, 
 not a community like our own, of fixed habits, 
 of character moulded and settled, but one " in 
 the gristle, not yet hardened into the bone of 
 manhood." The people there, children of our 
 older States, seem to have forgotten the blood- 
 tried principles of their fathers the moment 
 they lost sight of our New England hills. 
 Something was to be done to show them the 
 priceless value of the freedom of the press, to 
 
 VOL. II. 8. 
 
114 WENDELL PHILLIPS. 
 
 bring back and set right their wandering and 
 confused ideas. He and his advisers looked 
 out on a community, staggering like a drunken 
 man, indifferent to their rights and confused in 
 their feelings. Deaf to argument, haply they 
 might be stunned into sobriety. They saw that 
 of which we cannot judge, the necessity of re- 
 sistance. Insulted law called for it. Public 
 opinion, fast hastening on the downward course, 
 must be arrested. 
 
 Does not the event show they judged rightly? 
 Absorbed in a thousand trifles, how has the na- 
 tion all at once come to a stand ? Men begin, 
 as in 1776 and 1640, to discuss principles, to 
 weigh characters, to find out where they are. 
 Haply we may awake before we are borne over 
 the precipice. 
 
 I am glad, sir, to see this crowded house, It 
 is good for us to be here. When Liberty is in 
 danger Faneuil Hall has the right, it is her duty, 
 to strike the key-note for these United States. 
 I am glad, for one reason, that remarks such as 
 those to which I have alluded have been ut- 
 tered here. The passage of these resolutions, 
 in spite of this opposition, led by the Attorney- 
 General of the Commonwealth, will show more 
 clearly, more decisively, the deep indignation 
 with which Boston regards this outrage. 10 
 
JOHN QUINCY ADAMS * 
 
 OF MASSACHUSETTS. 1 
 (BORN 1767, DIED 1848.) 
 
 ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL WAR POWER OVER SLA- 
 VERY* HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
 MAY 25, 1836. 
 
 THERE are, then, Mr. Chairman, in the author, 
 ity of Congress and of the Executive, two classes 
 of powers, altogether different in their nature, 
 and often incompatible with each other the 
 war power and the peace power. The peace 
 power is limited by regulations and restricted 
 by provisions, prescribed within the constitu- 
 tion itself. The war power is limited only by 
 the laws and usages of nations. The power is 
 tremendous ; it is strictly constitutional, but it 
 breaks down every barrier so anxiously erected 
 for the protection of liberty, of property, and 
 
 * For notes on Adams, see Appendix, p. 372. 
 
Il6 JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. 
 
 of life. This, sir, is the power which author- 
 izes you to pass the resolution now before you, 
 and, in my opinion, there is no other. 
 
 And this, sir, is the reason which I was not 
 permitted to give this morning for voting with 
 only eight associates against the first resolution 
 reported by the committee on the abolition 
 petitions ; not one word of discussion had been 
 permitted on either of those resolutions. When 
 called to vote upon the first of them, I asked 
 only five minutes of the time of the House to 
 prove that it was utterly unfoundedo It was 
 not the pleasure of the House to grant me those 
 five minutes. Sir, I must say that, in all the 
 proceedings of the House upon that report, 
 from the previous question, moved and inflexi- 
 bly persisted in by a member of the commit- 
 tee itself which reported the resolutions, (Mr. 
 Owens, of Georgia,) to the refusal of the Speaker, 
 sustained by the majority of the House, to per- 
 mit the other gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
 Glascock) to record upon the journal his reasons 
 for asking to be excused from voting on that 
 same resolution, the freedom of debate has been 
 stifled in this House to a degree far beyond any 
 thing that ever happened since the existence of 
 the Constitution of the United States ; nor is it 
 
THE WAR POWER OVER SLAVERY. 1 1/ 
 
 a consolatory reflection to me how intensely we 
 have been made to feel, in the process of that 
 operation, that the Speaker of this House is a 
 slaveholder. 3 And, sir, as I was not then per- 
 mitted to assign my reasons for voting against 
 that resolution before I gave the vote, I rejoice 
 that the reason for which I shall vote for the 
 resolution now before the committee is identi- 
 cally the same with that for which I voted 
 against that. 
 
 [Mr. Adams at this, and at many other pas- 
 sages of this speech, was interrupted by calls to 
 order. The Chairman of the Committee (Mr. 
 A. H. Shepperd, of North Carolina,) in every 
 instance, decided that he was not out of order, 
 but at this passage intimated that he was ap- 
 proaching very close upon its borders ; upon 
 which Mr. Adams said, " Then I am to under- 
 stand, sir, that I am yet within the bounds of 
 order, but that I may transcend them hereafter."] 
 ****** ** 
 
 And, now, sir, am I to be disconcerted and 
 silenced, or admonished by the Chair that I am 
 approaching to irrelevant matter, which may 
 warrant him to arrest me in my argument, be- 
 cause I say that the reason for which I shall 
 vote for the resolution now before the commit- 
 
Il8 JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. 
 
 tee, levying a heavy contribution upon the 
 property of my constituents, is identically the 
 same with the reason for which I voted against 
 the resolution reported by the slavery commit- 
 tee, that Congress have no authority to interfere, 
 in any way, with slavery in any of the States of 
 this Union. Sir, I was not allowed to give my 
 reasons for that vote, and a majority of my con- 
 stituents, perhaps proportionately as large as 
 that of this House in favor of that resolution, 
 may and probably will disapprove my vote 
 against, unless my reasons for so voting should 
 be explained to them. I asked but five min- 
 utes of the House to give those reasons, and 
 was refused. I shall, therefore, take the liberty 
 to give them now, as they are strictly applica- 
 ble to the measure now before the Committee, 
 and are my only justification for voting in favor 
 of this resolution. 
 
 I return, then, to my first position, that there 
 are two classes of powers vested by the Consti- 
 tution of the United States in their Congress 
 and Executive Government : the powers to be 
 exercised in the time of peace, and the powers 
 incidental to war. That the powers of peace 
 are limited by provisions within the body of 
 the Constitution itself, but that the powers of 
 
THE WAR POWER OVER SLAVERY. \\g 
 
 war are limited and regulated only by the laws 
 and usages of nations. There are, indeed, pow- 
 ers of peace conferred upon Congress, which 
 also come within the scope and jurisdiction of 
 the laws of nations, such as the negotiation of 
 treaties of amity and commerce, the interchange 
 of public ministers and consuls, and all the per- 
 sonal and social intercourse between the indi- 
 vidual inhabitants of the United States and 
 foreign nations, and the Indian tribes, which 
 require the interposition of any law. But the 
 powers of war are all regulated by the laws of 
 nations, and are subject to no other limitation. 
 It is by this power that I am justified in voting 
 the money of my constituents for the immedi- 
 ate relief of their fellow-citizens suffering with 
 extreme necessity even for subsistence, by the 
 direct consequence of an Indian war. Upon 
 the same principle, your consuls in foreign 
 ports are authorized to provide for the subsist- 
 ence of seamen in distress, and even for their 
 passage to their own country. 
 
 And it was upon that same principle that I 
 voted against the resolution reported by the 
 slavery committee, " That Congress possess no 
 constitutional authority to interfere, in any 
 way, with the institution of slavery in any of 
 
120 JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. 
 
 the States of this confederacy," to which reso- 
 lution most of those with whom I usually con- 
 cur, and even my own colleagues in this House, 
 gave their assent. 5 I do not admit that there 
 is even among the peace powers of Congress 
 no such authority ; but in war there are many 
 ways by which Congress not only have the 
 authority, but are bound to interfere with the 
 institution of slavery in the States. The ex- 
 isting law prohibiting the importation of slaves 
 into the United States from foreign countries, 
 is itself an interference with the institution of 
 slavery in the States. It was so considered by 
 the founders of the Constitution of the United 
 States, in which it was stipulated that Congress 
 should not interfere, in that way, with the in- 
 stitution, prior to the year 1808. 
 
 During the late war with Great Britain the 
 military and naval commanders of that nation 
 issued proclamations inviting the slaves to re- 
 pair to their standards, with promises of free- 
 dom and of settlement in some of the British 
 colonial establishments. This, surely, was an 
 interference with the institution of slavery in 
 the States. By the treaty of peace, Great 
 Britain stipulated to evacuate all the forts and 
 places in the United States, without carrying 
 
THE WAR POWER OVER SLAVERY. 121 
 
 away any slaves. If the Government of the 
 United States had no authority to interfere, in 
 any way, with the institution of slavery in the 
 States, they would not have had the authority 
 to require this stipulation. It is well known 
 that this engagement was not fulfilled by the 
 British naval and military commanders ; that, 
 on the contrary, they did carry away all the 
 slaves whom they had induced to join them, 
 and that the British Government inflexibly re- 
 fused to restore any of them to their masters ; 
 that a claim of indemnity was consequently 
 instituted in behalf of the owners of the slaves, 
 and was successfully maintained. All that 
 series of transactions was an interference by 
 Congress with the institution of slavery in the 
 States in one way in the way of protection 
 and support. It was by the institution of 
 slavery alone that the restitution of slaves en- 
 ticed by proclamations into the British service 
 could be claimed as property. But for the 
 institution of slavery, the British commanders 
 could neither have allured them to their stand- 
 ard, nor restored them otherwise than as 
 liberated prisoners of war. But for the institu- 
 tion of slavery, there could have been no stipu- 
 lation that they should not be carried away as 
 
122 JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. 
 
 property, nor any claim of indemnity for the 
 violation of that engagement. 
 
 But the war power of Congress over the in- 
 stitution of slavery in the States is yet far more 
 extensive. Suppose the case of a servile war, 
 complicated, as to some extent it is even now, 
 with an Indian war ; suppose Congress were 
 called to raise armies, to supply money from 
 the whole Union, to suppress a servile insurrec- 
 tion : would they have no authority to interfere 
 with the institution of slavery ? The issue of 
 a servile war may be disastrous. By war the 
 slave may emancipate himself ; it may become 
 necessary for the master to recognize his eman- 
 cipation by a treaty of peace ; can it for an 
 instant be pretended that Congress, in such a 
 contingency, would have no authority to inter- 
 fere with the institution of slavery, in any way, 
 in the States? Why, it would be equivalent to 
 saying that Congress have no constitutional 
 authority to make peace.' 
 
JOHN C. CALHOUN,* 
 
 OF SOUTH CAROLINA. 1 
 (BORN 1782, DIED 1850.) 
 
 ON THE SLAVERY QUESTION, SENATE, MARCH 4, 
 1850.' 
 
 I HAVE, Senators, believed from the first that 
 the agitation of the subject of slavery would, if 
 not prevented by some timely and effective 
 measure, end in disunion. Entertaining this 
 opinion, I have, on all proper occasions, en- 
 deavored to call the attention of both the two 
 great parties which divide the country to adopt 
 some measure to prevent so great a disaster, 
 but without success. The agitation has been 
 permitted to proceed, with almost no attempt 
 to resist it, until it has reached a point when it 
 can no longer be disguised or denied that the 
 Union is in danger. You have thus had forced 
 upon you the greatest and the gravest question 
 that can ever come under your consideration : 
 How can the Union be preserved ? 
 
 * For notes on Calhoun, see Appendix, p. 376. 
 123 
 
124 JOHN C. CALIJOUN. 
 
 To give a satisfactory answer to this mighty 
 question, it is indispensable to have an accurate 
 and thorough knowledge of the nature and 
 the character of the cause by which the Union 
 is endangered. Without such knowledge it 
 is impossible to pronounce, with any certainty, 
 by what measure it can be saved ; just as it 
 would be impossible for a physician to pro- 
 nounce, in the case of some dangerous disease, 
 with any certainty, by what remedy the patient 
 could be saved, without similar knowledge of 
 the nature and character of the cause which 
 produced it. The first question, then, presented 
 for consideration, in the investigation I pro- 
 pose to make, in order to obtain such knowl- 
 edge, is : What is it that has endangered the 
 Union ? 
 
 To this question there can be but one an- 
 swer : That the immediate cause is the almost 
 universal discontent which pervades all the 
 States composing the southern section of the 
 Union. This widely-extended discontent is not 
 of recent origin. It commenced with the agita- 
 tion of the slavery question, and has been in- 
 creasing ever since. The next question, going 
 one step further back, is : What has caused this 
 widely-diffused and almost universal discon- 
 tent? 
 
THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 12$ 
 
 It is a great mistake to suppose, as is by 
 some, that it originated with demagogues, who 
 excited the discontent with the intention of 
 aiding their personal advancement, or with the 
 disappointed ambition of certain politicians, 
 who resorted to it as a means of retrieving their 
 fortunes. On the contrary, all the great politi- 
 cal influences of the section were arrayed against 
 excitement, and exerted to the utmost to keep 
 the people quiet. The great mass of the 
 people of the South were divided, as in the 
 other section, into Whigs and Democrats. The 
 leaders and the presses of both parties in the 
 South were very solicitous to prevent excite- 
 ment and to preserve quiet ; because it was 
 seen that the effects of the former would neces- 
 sarily tend to weaken, if not destroy, the politi- 
 cal ties which united them with their respec- 
 tive parties in the other section. Those who 
 know the strength of the party ties will readily 
 appreciate the immense force which this cause 
 exerted against agitation, and in favor of pre- 
 serving quiet. But, great as it was, it was not 
 sufficient to prevent the wide-spread discontent 
 which now pervades the section. No ; some 
 cause, far deeper and more powerful than the 
 one supposed, must exist, to account for dis- 
 
126 JOHN C. CALHOUN. 
 
 content so wide and deep. The question then 
 recurs : What is the cause of this discontent ? It 
 will be found in the belief of the people of the 
 Southern States, as prevalent as the discontent 
 itself, that they cannot remain, as things now 
 are, consistently with honor and safety, in the 
 Union. The next question to be considered is : 
 What has caused this belief ? 
 
 One of the causes is, undoubtedly, to be 
 traced to the long-continued agitation of the 
 slavery question on the part of the North, and 
 the many aggressions which they have made on 
 the rights of the South during the time. I will 
 not enumerate them at present, as it will be 
 done hereafter in its proper place. 
 
 There is another lying back of it with which 
 this is intimately connected that may be re- 
 garded as the great and primary cause. This is 
 to be found in the fact, that the equilibrium be- 
 tween the two sections, in the Government as it 
 stood when the Constitution was ratified and the 
 Government put in action, has been destroyed. 
 At that time there was nearly a perfect equilib- 
 rium between the two, which afforded ample 
 means to each to protect itself against the ag- 
 gression of the other ; but, as it now stands, one 
 section has the exclusive power of controlling 
 
THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 12? 
 
 the Government, which leaves the other without 
 any adequate means of protecting itself against 
 its encroachment and oppression. To place 
 this subject distinctly before you, I have, Sena- 
 tors, prepared a brief statistical statement, 
 showing the relative weight of the two sections 
 in the Government under the first census of 
 1790, and the last census of 1840. 
 
 According to the former, the population of 
 the United States, including Vermont, Ken- 
 tucky, and Tennessee, which then were in their 
 incipient condition of becoming States, but 
 were not actually admitted, amounted to 
 3,929,827. Of this number the Northern States 
 had 1,997,899, and the Southern 1,952,072, 
 making a difference of only 45,827 in favor of 
 the former States. 
 
 The number of States, including Vermont, 
 Kentucky, and Tennessee, were sixteen ; of 
 which eight, including Vermont, belonged to 
 the northern section, and eight, including Ken- 
 tucky and Tennessee, to the southern, making 
 an equal division of the States between the two 
 sections, under the first census. There was a 
 small preponderance in the House of Repre- 
 sentatives, and in the Electoral College, in favor 
 of the northern, owing to the fact that, accord- 
 
128 JOHN C. CALHOUN. 
 
 ing to the provisions of the Constitution, in esti- 
 mating federal numbers five slaves count but 
 three ; but it was too small to affect sensibly 
 the perfect equilibrium which, with that excep- 
 tion, existed at the time. Such was the equality 
 of the two sections when the States composing 
 them agreed to enter into a Federal Union. 
 Since then the equilibrium between them has 
 been greatly disturbed. 
 
 According to the last census the aggregate 
 population of the United States amounted to 
 17,063,357, of which the northern section 
 contained 9,728,920, and the southern 7,334,437, 
 making a difference in round numbers, of 
 2,400,000. The number of States had increased 
 from sixteen to twenty-six, making an addition 
 of ten States. In the meantime the position of 
 Delaware had become doubtful as to which sec- 
 tion she properly belonged. Considering her as 
 neutral, the Northern States will have thirteen 
 and the Southern States twelve, making a dif- 
 ference in the Senate of two senators in favor 
 of the former. According to the apportion- 
 ment under the census of 1840, there were two 
 hundred and twenty-three members of the 
 House of Representatives, of which the North- 
 ern States had one hundred and thirty-five, and 
 
THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 1 29 
 
 the Southern States (considering Delaware 
 as neutral) eighty-seven, making a difference in 
 favor of the former in the House of Represen- 
 tatives of forty-eight. The difference in the 
 Senate of two members, added to this, gives 
 to the North in the Electoral College, a majority 
 of fifty. Since the census of 1840, four States 
 have been added to the Union Iowa, Wis- 
 consin, Florida, and Texas. They leave the 
 difference in the Senate as it was when the 
 census was taken ; but add two to the side of the 
 North in the House, making the present major- 
 ity in the House in its favor fifty, and in the 
 Electoral College fifty-two. 
 
 The result of the whole is to give the north- 
 ern section a predominance in every department 
 of the Government, and thereby concentrate in 
 it the two elements which constitute the Fed- 
 eral Government, majority of States, and a 
 majority of their population, estimated in federal 
 numbers. Whatever section concentrates the 
 two in itself possesses the control of the entire 
 Government. 
 
 But we are just at the close of the sixth 
 decade, and the commencement of the seventh. 
 The census is to be taken this year, which must 
 add greatly to the decided preponderance of 
 
130 JOHN C. CALHOUN. 
 
 the North in the House of Representatives and 
 in the Electoral College. The prospect is, also, 
 that a great increase will be added to its present 
 preponderance in the Senate, during the period 
 of the decade, by the addition of new States. 
 Two territories, Oregon and Minnesota, are 
 already in progress, and strenuous efforts are 
 making to bring in three additional States 8 from 
 the territory recently conquered from Mexico ; 
 which, if successful, will add three other States 
 in a short time to the northern section, making 
 five States; and increasing the present number 
 of its States from fifteen to twenty, and of its 
 senators from thirty to forty. On the contrary, 
 there is not a single territory in progress in the 
 southern section, and no certainty that any 
 additional State will be added to it during the 
 decade. The prospect then is, that the two 
 sections in the senate, should the effort now 
 made to exclude the South 4 from the newly 
 acquired territories succeed, will stand before 
 the end of the decade, twenty Northern States 
 to fourteen Southern (considering Delaware as 
 neutral), and forty Northern senators to twenty- 
 eight Southern. This great increase of senators, 
 added to the great increase of members of the 
 House of Representatives and the Electoral 
 
THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 13! 
 
 College on the part of the North, which must 
 take place under the next decade, will effectually 
 and irretrievably destroy the equilibrium which 
 existed when the Government commenced. 6 
 
 Had this destruction been the operation of 
 time, without the interference of Government, 
 the South would have had no reason to com- 
 plain ; but such was not the fact. It was 
 caused by the legislation of this Government, 
 which was appointed as the common agent of 
 all, and charged with the protection of the in- 
 terests and security of all. The legislation by 
 which it has been effected may be classed under 
 three heads. The first is, that series of acts by 
 which the South has been excluded from the 
 common territory belonging to all the States as 
 members of the Federal Union which have 
 had the effect of extending vastly the portion 
 allotted to the northern section, and restricting 
 within narrow limits the portion left the South. 
 The next consists in adopting a system of revenue 
 and disbursements, by which an undue propor- 
 tion of the burden of taxation has been imposed 
 upon the South, and an undue proportion of its 
 proceeds appropriated to the North ; and the 
 last is a system of political measures, by which 
 the original character of the Government has 
 
132 JOHN- C. CALHOUN. 
 
 been radically changed. I propose to bestow 
 upon each of these, in the order they stand, a 
 few remarks, with the view of showing that it 
 is owing to the action of this Government that 
 the equilibrium between the two sections has 
 been destroyed, and the whole powers of the 
 system centered in a sectional majority. 
 
 The first of the series of Acts by which the 
 South was deprived of its due share of the 
 territories, originated with the confederacy 
 which preceded the existence of this Govern- 
 ment. It is to be found in the provision of the 
 ordinance of 1787. Its effect was to exclude 
 the South entirely from that vast and fertile 
 region which lies between the Ohio and the 
 Mississippi rivers, now embracing five States 
 and one Territory." The next of the series is 
 the Missouri compromise, which excluded the 
 South from that large portion of Louisiana 
 which lies north of 36 30', excepting what is 
 included in the State of Missouri. The last of 
 the series excluded the South from the whole 
 of Oregon Territory. All these, in the slang of 
 the day, were what are called slave territories/ 
 and not free soil ; that is, territories belonging 
 to slaveholding powers and open to the emi- 
 gration of masters with their slaves. By these 
 
THE SLAVERY QUESTION, 133 
 
 several Acts the South was excluded from one 
 million two hundred and thirty-eight thousand 
 and twenty-five square miles an extent of 
 country considerably exceeding the entire val- 
 ley of the Mississippi. To the South was left 
 the portion of the Territory of Louisiana lying 
 south of 36 30', and the portion north of it in- 
 cluded in the State of Missouri, with the por. 
 tion lying south of 36 30' including the States 
 of Louisiana and Arkansas, and the territory 
 lying west of the latter, and south of 36 30', 
 called the Indian country. These, with the 
 Territory of Florida, now the State, make, in 
 the whole, two hundred and eighty-three thou- 
 sand five hundred and three square miles. To 
 this must be added the territory acquired with 
 Texas. If the whole should be added to the 
 southern section it would make an increase of 
 three hundred and twenty-five thousand five 
 hundred and twenty, which would make the 
 whole left to the South six hundred and nine 
 thousand and twenty-three. But a large part 
 of Texas is still in contest between the two sec- 
 tions, which leaves it uncertain what will be the 
 real extent of the proportion of territory that 
 may be left to the South. 
 
 I have not included the territory recently ac- 
 
134 JOHN C. CALHOUN. 
 
 quired by the treaty with Mexico. The North is 
 making the most strenuous efforts to appropri- 
 ate the whole to herself, by excluding the 
 South from every foot of it. If she should 
 succeed, it will add to that from which the 
 South has already been excluded, 526,078 
 square miles, and would increase the whole 
 which the North has appropriated to herself, to 
 i, 764,023, not including the portion that she 
 may succeed in excluding us from in Texas. 
 To sum up the whole, the United States, since 
 they declared their independence, have acquired 
 2,373,046 square miles of territory, from which 
 the North will have excluded the South, if she 
 should succeed in monopolizing the newly ac- 
 quired territories, about three fourths of the 
 whole, leaving to the South but about one 
 fourth. 
 
 Such is the first and great cause that has 
 destroyed the equilibrium between the two sec- 
 tions in the Government. 
 
 The next is the system of revenue and dis- 
 bursements which has been adopted by the 
 Government. It is well known that the Govern- 
 ment has derived its revenue mainly from du- 
 ties on imports. I shall not undertake to show 
 that such duties must necessarily fall mainly on 
 
THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 135 
 
 the exporting States, and that the South, as 
 the great exporting portion of the Union, has 
 in reality paid vastly more than her due pro- 
 portion of the revenue ; because I deem it un- 
 necessary, as the subject has on so many occa- 
 sions been fully discussed. Nor shall I, for the 
 same reason, undertake to show that a far 
 greater portion of the revenue has been dis- 
 bursed at the North, than its due share ; and 
 that the joint effect of these causes has 
 been, to transfer a vast amount from South to 
 North, which, under an equal system of revenue 
 and disbursements, would not have been lost to 
 her. If to this be added, that many of the 
 duties were imposed, not for revenue, but for 
 protection, that is, intended to put money, 
 not in the treasury, but directly into the 
 pockets of the manufacturers, some concep- 
 tion may be formed of the immense amount 
 which, in the long course of sixty years, has 
 been transferred from South to North. There 
 are no data by which it can be estimated with 
 any certainty ; but it is safe to say that it 
 amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars. Un- 
 der the most moderate estimate, it would be 
 sufficient to add greatly to the wealth of the 
 North, and thus greatly increase her popula- 
 
136 JOHN C. CALHOUN. 
 
 tion by attracting emigration from all quarters 
 to that section. 
 
 This, combined with the great primary cause, 
 amply explains why the North has acquired 
 a preponderance in every department of the 
 Government by its disproportionate increase of 
 population and States. The former, as has 
 been shown, has increased, in fifty years, 2,400,- 
 ooo over that of the South. This increase of 
 population, during so long a period, is satisfac- 
 torily accounted for, by the number of emi- 
 grants, and the increase of their descendants, 
 which have been attracted to the northern sec- 
 tion from Europe and the South, in consequence 
 of the advantages derived from the causes as- 
 signed. If they had not existed if the South 
 had retained all the capital which had been ex- 
 tracted from her by the fiscal action of the 
 Government ; and, if it had not been excluded 
 by the ordinance of 1787 and the Missouri com- 
 promise, from the region lying between the 
 Ohio and the Mississippi rivers, and between 
 the Mississippi and the Rocky Mountains north 
 of 36 30' it scarcely admits of a doubt, that it 
 would have divided the emigration with the 
 North, and by retaining her own people, would 
 have at least equalled the North in population 
 
THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 137 
 
 under the census of 1840, and probably under 
 that about to be taken. She would also, if she 
 had retained her equal rights in those territories, 
 have maintained an equality in the number of 
 States with the North, and have preserved the 
 equilibrium between the two sections that 
 existed at the commencement of the Govern- 
 ment. The loss, then, of the equilibrium is 
 to be attributed to the action of this Govern- 
 ment. 
 
 But while these measures were destroying the 
 equilibrium between the two sections, the action 
 of the Government was leading to a radical 
 change in its character, by concentrating all the 
 power of the system in itself. The occasion 
 will not permit me to trace the measures by 
 which this great change has been consummated. 
 If it did, it would not be difficult to show that 
 the process commenced at an early period of 
 the Government ; and that it proceeded, almost 
 without interruption, step by step, until it vir- 
 tually absorbed its entire powers ; but without 
 going through the whole process to establish 
 the fact, it may be done satisfactorily by a very 
 short statement. 
 
 That the Government claims, and practically 
 maintains, the right to decide in the last resort. 
 
138 JOHN C. CALHOUN. 
 
 as to the extent of its powers, 8 will scarcely be 
 denied by any one conversant with the political 
 history of the country. That it also claims the 
 right to resort to force to maintain whatever 
 power it claims against all opposition is equally 
 certain. Indeed it is apparent, from what we 
 daily hear, that this has become the prevailing 
 and fixed opinion of a great majority of the 
 community. Now, I ask, what limitation can 
 possibly be placed upon the powers of a gov- 
 ernment claiming and exercising such rights ? 
 And, if none can be, how can the separate gov- 
 ernments of the States maintain and protect the 
 powers reserved to them by the Constitution 
 or the people of the several States maintain 
 those which are reserved to them, and among 
 others, the sovereign powers by which they or- 
 dained and established, not only their separate 
 State Constitutions and Governments, but also 
 the Constitution and Government of the United 
 States? But, if they have no constitutional 
 means of maintaining them against the right 
 claimed by this Government, it necessarily fol- 
 lows, that they hold them at its pleasure and 
 discretion, and that all the powers of the sys- 
 tem are in reality concentrated in it. It also 
 follows, that the character of the Government 
 
THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 139 
 
 lias been changed in consequence, from a fed- 
 eral republic, as it originally came from the 
 hands of its framers, into a great national con- 
 solidated democracy. It has indeed, at present, 
 all the characteristics of the latter, and not of 
 the former, although it still retains its outward 
 form. 
 
 The result of the whole of those causes com- 
 bined is, that the North has acquired a decided 
 ascendency over every department of this Gov- 
 ernment, and through it a control over all the 
 powers of the system. A single section gov- 
 erned by the will of the numerical majority, 
 has now, in fact, the control of the Government 
 and the entire powers of the system. What 
 was once a constitutional federal republic, is 
 now converted, in reality, into one as absolute 
 as that of the Autocrat of Russia, and as des- 
 potic in its tendency as any absolute govern- 
 ment that ever existed. 
 
 As, then, the North has the absolute control 
 over the Government, it is manifest that on all 
 questions between it and the South, where 
 there is a diversity of interests, the interest of 
 the latter will be sacrificed to the former, how- 
 ever oppressive the effects may be ; as the 
 South possesses no means by which it can re- 
 
140 JOHN C. CALHOUN. 
 
 sist, through the action of the Government.* 
 But if there was no question of vital importance 
 to the South, in reference to which there was a 
 diversity of views between the two sections, 
 this state of things might be endured without 
 the hazard of destruction to the South. But 
 such is not the fact. There is a question of 
 vital importance to the southern section, in 
 reference to which the views and feelings of the 
 two sections are as opposite and hostile as they 
 can possibly be. 
 
 I refer to the relation between the two races in 
 the southern section, which constitutes a vital 
 portion of her social organization. Every por- 
 tion of the North entertains views and feelings 
 more or less hostile to it. Those most opposed 
 and hostile, regard it as a sin, and consider them- 
 selves under the most sacred obligation to use 
 every effort to destroy it. Indeed, to the ex- 
 tent that they conceive that they have power, 
 they regard themselves as implicated in the sin, 
 and responsible for not suppressing it by the use 
 of all and every means. Those less opposed and 
 hostile, regarded it as a crime an offence 
 against humanity, as they call it ; and, although 
 not so fanatical, feel themselves bound to use 
 all efforts to effect the same object ; while those 
 
THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 141 
 
 who are least opposed and hostile, regard it as a 
 blot and a stain on the character of what they 
 call the Nation, and feel themselves accordingly 
 bound to give it no countenance or support. 
 On the contrary, the southern section regards 
 the relation as one which cannot be destroyed 
 without subjecting the two races to the great- 
 est calamity, and the section to poverty, deso- 
 lation, and wretchedness ; and accordingly they 
 feel bound, by every consideration of interest 
 and safety, to defend it. 10 
 
 This hostile feeling on the part of the North 
 toward the social organization of the South long 
 lay dormant, and it only required some cause to 
 act on those who felt most intensely that they 
 were responsible for itscontinuance,to call it into 
 action. The increasing power of this Govern- 
 ment, and of the control of the northern section 
 over all its departments, furnished the cause. 
 It was this which made the impression on the 
 minds of many, that there was little or no re- 
 straint to prevent the Government from doing 
 whatever it might choose to do. This was 
 sufficient of itself to put the most fanatical por- 
 tion of the North in action, for the purpose of 
 destroying the existing relation between the 
 two races in the South. 
 
142 JOHN C. CALHOUN. 
 
 The first organized movement toward it com- 
 menced in 1835." Then, for the first time, 
 societies were organized, presses established, 
 lecturers sent forth to excite the people of the 
 North, and incendiary publications scattered 
 over the whole South, through the mail. The 
 South was thoroughly aroused. Meetings were 
 held everywhere, and resolutions adopted, call- 
 ing upon the North to apply a remedy to arrest 
 the threatened evil, and pledging themselves to 
 adopt measures for their own protection, if it 
 was not arrested. At the meeting of Congress, 
 petitions poured in from the North, calling upon 
 Congress to abolish slavery in the District of 
 Columbia, and to prohibit, what they called, 
 the internal slave trade between the States 
 announcing at the same time, that their ulti- 
 mate object was to abolish slavery, not only 
 in the District, but in the States and through- 
 out the Union. At this period, the number 
 engaged in the agitation was small, and pos- 
 sessed little or no personal influence. 
 
 Neither party in Congress had, at that time, 
 any sympathy with them or their cause. The 
 members of each party presented their pe- 
 titions with great reluctance. Nevertheless, 
 small, and contemptible as the party then was. 
 
THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 1 43 
 
 both of the great parties of the North dreaded 
 them. They felt, that though small, they were 
 organized in reference to a subject which had 
 a great and commanding influence over the 
 northern mind. Each party, on that account, 
 feared to oppose their petitions, lest the oppo- 
 site party should take advantage of the one 
 who might do so, by favoring them. The effect 
 was, that both united in insisting that the peti- 
 tions should be received, and that Congress 
 should take jurisdiction over the subject. To 
 justify their course, they took the extraordi- 
 nary ground, that Congress was bound to re- 
 ceive petitions on every subject, however ob- 
 jectionable they might be, and whether they 
 had, or had not, jurisdiction over the subject. 
 Those views prevailed in the House of Repre- 
 sentatives, and partially in the Senate ; and 
 thus the party succeeded in their first move- 
 ments, in gaining what they proposed a posi- 
 tion in Congress, from which agitation could be 
 extended over the whole Union. This was the 
 commencement of the agitation, which has 
 ever since continued, and which, as is now ac- 
 knowledged, has endangered the Union itself. 
 As for myself, I believed at that early period, 
 if the party who got up the petitions should 
 
144 JOHN C. CALHOUN. 
 
 succeed in getting Congress to take jurisdiction, 
 that agitation would follow, and that it would 
 in the end, if not arrested, destroy the Union. 
 I then so expressed myself in debate, and called 
 upon both parties to take grounds against 
 assuming jurisdiction ; but in vain. 1 * Had my 
 voice been heeded, and had Congress refused 
 to take jurisdiction, by the united votes of all 
 parties, the agitation which followed would 
 have been prevented, and the fanatical zeal that 
 gave impulse to the agitation, and which has 
 brought us to our present perilous condition, 
 would have become extinguished, from the want 
 of fuel to feed the flame. That was the time for 
 the North to have shown her devotion to the 
 Union ; but, unfortunately, both of the great 
 parties of that section were so intent on obtain- 
 ing or retaining party ascendency, that all other 
 considerations were overlooked or forgotten. 
 
 What has since followed are but natural con- 
 sequences. With the success of their first move- 
 ment, this small fanatical party began to acquire 
 strength ; and with that, to become an object 
 of courtship to both the great parties. The 
 necessary consequence was, a further increase 
 of power, and a gradual tainting of the opinions 
 of both the other parties with their doctrines, 
 
THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 14$ 
 
 until the infection has extended over both ; and 
 the great mass of the population of the North, 
 who, whatever may be their opinion of the 
 original abolition party, which still preserves its 
 distinctive organization, hardly ever fail, when 
 it comes to acting, to co-operate in carrying out 
 their measures. With the increase of their in- 
 fluence, they extended the sphere of their ac- 
 tion. In a short time after the commencement 
 of their first movement, they had acquired suf- 
 ficient influence to induce the legislatures of 
 most of the Northern States to pass acts, which 
 in effect abrogated the clause of the Constitu- 
 tion that provides for the delivery up of fugi- 
 tive slaves. Not long after, petitions followed 
 to abolish slavery in forts, magazines, and dock- 
 yards, and all other places where Congress had 
 exclusive power of legislation. This was fol- 
 lowed by petitions and resolutions of legis- 
 latures of the Northern States, and popular 
 meetings, to exclude the Southern States from 
 all territories acquired, or to be acquired, and 
 to prevent the admission of any State hereafter 
 into the Union, which, by its constitution, does 
 not prohibit slavery. And Congress is invoked 
 to do all this, expressly with the view of the 
 final abolition of slavery in fhe States. That 
 
 VOL. II. 10. 
 
146 JOHN C. CALHOUN. 
 
 has been avowed to be the ultimate object 
 from the beginning of the agitation until the 
 present time ; and yet the great body of both 
 parties of the North, with the full knowledge of 
 the fact, although disavowing the abolitionists, 
 have co-operated with them in almost all their 
 measures. 
 
 Such is a brief history of the agitation, as far 
 as it has yet advanced. Now I ask, Senators, 
 what is there to prevent its further progress, 
 until it fulfils the ultimate end proposed, unless 
 some decisive measure should be adopted to 
 prevent it ? Has any one of the causes, which 
 has added to its increase from its original small 
 and contemptible beginning until it has attained 
 its present magnitude, diminished in force? Is 
 the original cause of the movement that slav- 
 ery is a sin, and ought to be suppressed 
 weaker now than at the commencement ? Or is 
 the abolition party less numerous or influential, 
 or have they less influence with, or less control 
 over the two great parties of the North in elec- 
 tions? Or has the South greater means of in- 
 fluencing or controlling the movements of this 
 Government now, than it had when the agitation 
 commenced ? To all these questions but one 
 answer can be given : No, no, no. The very 
 
THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 1 47 
 
 reverse is true. Instead of being weaker, all 
 the elements in favor of agitation are stronger 
 now than they were in 1835, when it first com- 
 menced, while all the elements of influence on 
 the part of the South are weaker. Unless some- 
 thing decisive is done, I again ask, what is to 
 stop this agitation, before the great and final 
 object at which it aims the abolition of slavery 
 in the States is consummated? Is it, then, 
 not certain, that if something is not done to 
 arrest it, the South will be forced to choose 
 between abolition and secession ? Indeed, as 
 events are now moving, it will not require the 
 South to secede, in order to dissolve the Union. 
 Agitation will of itself effect it, of which its past 
 history furnishes abundant proof as I shall 
 next proceed to show. 
 
 It is a great mistake to suppose that disunion 
 can be effected by a single blow. The cords 
 which bound these States together in one com- 
 mon Union, are far too numerous and powerful 
 for that. Disunion must be the work of time. 
 It is only through a long process, and succes- 
 sively, that the cords can be snapped, until the 
 whole fabric falls asunder. Already the agitation 
 of the slavery question has snapped some of 
 the most important, and has greatly weakened 
 all the others, as I shall proceed to show. 
 
148 JOHN C. CALHOUN. 
 
 The cords that bind the States together are 
 not only many, but various in character. Some 
 are spiritual or ecclesiastical ; some political ; 
 others social. Some appertain to the benefit 
 conferred by the Union, and others to the feel- 
 ing of duty and obligation. 
 
 The strongest of those of a spiritual and 
 ecclesiastical nature, consisted in the unity of 
 the great religious denominations, all of which 
 originally embraced the whole Union. All 
 these denominations, with the exception, per- 
 haps, of the Catholics, were organized very 
 much upon the principle of our political insti- 
 tutions. Beginning with smaller meetings, cor- 
 responding with the political divisions of the 
 country, their organization terminated in one 
 great central assemblage, corresponding very 
 much with the character of Congress. At these 
 meetings the principal clergymen and lay mem- 
 bers of the respective denominations from all 
 parts of the Union, met to transact business 
 relating to their common concerns. It was not 
 confined to what appertained to the doctrines 
 and discipline of the respective denominations, 
 but extended to plans for disseminating the 
 Bible establishing missions, distributing tracts 
 and of establishing presses for the publication 
 
THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 149 
 
 of tracts, newspapers, and periodicals, with a 
 view of diffusing religious information and for 
 the support of their respective doctrines and 
 creeds. All this combined contributed greatly 
 to strengthen the bonds of the Union. The 
 ties which held each denomination together 
 formed a strong cord to hold the whole Union 
 together , but, powerful as they were, they have 
 not been able to resist the explosive effect of 
 slavery agitation. 
 
 The first of these cords which snapped, under 
 its explosive force, was that of the powerful 
 Methodist Episcopal Church. 13 The numerous 
 and strong ties which held it together, are all 
 broken, and its unity is gone. They now form 
 separate churches ; and, instead of that feeling 
 of attachment and devotion to the interests of 
 the whole church which was formerly felt, 
 they are now arrayed into two hostile bodies, 
 engaged in litigation about what was formerly 
 their common property. 
 
 The next cord that snapped was that of the 
 Baptists one of the largest and most respect- 
 able of the denominations. That of the Pres- 
 byterian is not entirely snapped, but some of 
 its strands have given way. That of the Epis- 
 copal Church is the only one of the four great 
 
150 JOHN C. CALHOUN. 
 
 Protestant denominations which remains un- 
 broken and entire. 
 
 The strongest cord, of a political character, 
 consists of the many and powerful ties that 
 have held together the two great parties which 
 have, with some modifications, existed from the 
 beginning of the Government. They both ex- 
 tended to every portion of the Union, and 
 strongly contributed to hold all its parts to- 
 gether. But this powerful cord has fared no 
 better than the spiritual. It resisted, for a long 
 time, the explosive tendency of the agitation, 
 but has finally snapped under its force if not 
 entirely, in a great measure. Nor is there one 
 of the remaining cords which has not been 
 greatly weakened. To this extent the Union 
 has already been destroyed by agitation, in the 
 only way it can be, by sundering and weaken- 
 ing the cords which bind it together. 
 
 If the agitation goes on, the same force, act- 
 ing with increased intensity, as has been shown, 
 will finally snap every cord, when nothing will 
 be left to hold the States together except force. 
 But, surely, that can, with no propriety of lan- 
 guage, be called a Union, when the only means 
 by which the weaker is held connected with 
 the stronger portion is force. It may, indeed, 
 
THE SLAVERY QUESTION. l$l 
 
 keep them connected ; but the connection will 
 partake much more of the character of subju- 
 gation, on the part of the weaker to the stronger, 
 than the union of free, independent States, in 
 one confederation, as they stood in the early 
 stages of the Government, and which only is 
 worthy of the sacred name of Union. 
 
 Having now, Senators, explained what it is 
 that endangers the Union, and traced it to its 
 cause, and explained its nature and character, 
 the question again recurs, How can the Union 
 be saved ? To this I answer, there is but one 
 way by which it can be, and that is by adopting 
 such measures as will satisfy the States be- 
 longing to the southern section, that they can 
 remain in the Union consistently with their 
 honor and their safety. There is, again, only 
 one way by which this can be effected, and that 
 is by removing the causes by which this belief 
 has been produced. Do this, and discontent 
 will cease, harmony and kind feelings between 
 the sections be restored, and every apprehen- 
 sion of danger to the Union be removed. The 
 question, then, is, How can this be done ? But, 
 before I undertake to answer this question, I 
 propose to show by what the Union cannot be 
 saved. 
 
152 JOHN C. CALHOUN. 
 
 It cannot, then, be saved by eulogies on the 
 Union, however splendid or numerous. The 
 cry of " Union, Union, the glorious Union ! " 
 can no more prevent disunion than the cry of 
 " Health, health, glorious health ! " on the part 
 of the physician, can save a patient lying dan- 
 gerously ill. So long as the Union, instead of 
 being regarded as a protector, is regarded in the 
 opposite character, by not much less than a 
 majority of the States, it will be in vain to at- 
 tempt to conciliate them by pronouncing eulo- 
 gies on it. 
 
 Besides, this cry of Union comes commonly 
 from those whom we cannot believe to be 
 sincere. It usually comes from our assailants. 
 But we cannot believe them to be sincere ; for, 
 if they loved the Union, they would necessa- 
 rily be devoted to the Constitution. It made 
 the Union, and to destroy the Constitution 
 would be to destroy the Union. But the only 
 reliable and certain evidence of devotion to the 
 Constitution is to abstain, on the one hand, 
 from violating it, and to repel, on the other, all 
 attempts to violate it. It is only by faithfully 
 performing these high duties that the Constitu- 
 tion can be preserved, and with it the Union. 
 
 But how stands the profession of devotion to 
 
THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 153 
 
 the Union by our assailants, when brought to 
 this test ? Have they abstained from violating 
 the Constitution? Let the many acts passed 
 by the Northern States to set aside and annul 
 the clause of the Constitution providing for the 
 delivery up of fugitive slaves answer. I cite 
 this, not that it is the only instance (for there 
 are many others), but because the violation in 
 this particular is too notorious and palpable to 
 be denied. Again : Have they stood forth 
 faithfully to repel violations of the Constitu- 
 tion ? Let their course in reference to the 
 agitation of the slavery question, which was 
 commenced and has been carried on for fifteen 
 years, avowedly for the purpose of abolishing 
 slavery in the States an object all acknowl- 
 edged to be unconstitutional, answer. Let 
 them show a single instance, during this long 
 period, in which they have denounced the 
 agitators or their attempts to effect what is 
 admitted to be unconstitutional, or a single 
 measure which they have brought forward for 
 that purpose. How can we, with all these facts 
 before us, believe that they are sincere in their 
 profession of devotion to the Union, or avoid 
 believing their profession is but intended to in- 
 crease the vigor of their assaults and to weaken 
 the force of our resistance ? 
 
154 JOHN C. CALHOUN. 
 
 Nor can we regard the profession of devotion 
 to the Union, on the part of those who are not 
 our assailants, as sincere, when they pronounce 
 eulogies upon the Union, evidently with the 
 intent of charging us with disunion, without 
 uttering one word of denunciation against our 
 assailants. If friends of the Union, their course 
 should be to unite with us in repelling these 
 assaults, and denouncing the authors as ene- 
 mies of the Union. Why they avoid this, and 
 pursue the course they do, it is for them to 
 explain. 
 
 Nor can the Union be saved by invoking the 
 name of the illustrious Southerner whose mor- 
 tal remains repose on the western bank of 
 the Potomac. He was one of us, a slave- 
 holder and a planter. We have studied his 
 history, and find nothing in it to justify sub- 
 mission to wrong. On the contrary, his great 
 fame rests on the solid foundation, that, while 
 he was careful to avoid doing wrong to others, 
 he was prompt and decided in repelling wrong. 
 I trust that, in this respect, we profited by his 
 example. 
 
 Nor can we find any thing in his history to 
 deter us from seceding from the Union, should 
 it fail to fulfil the objects for which it was insti- 
 
THE SLAVERY QUESTION. I 55 
 
 tuted, by being permanently and hopelessly 
 converted into the means of oppressing instead 
 of protecting us. On the contrary, we find 
 much in his example to encourage us, should 
 we be forced to the extremity of deciding be- 
 tween submission and disunion. 
 
 There existed then, as well as now, a union 
 between the parent country and her colo- 
 nies. It was a union that had much to endear 
 it to the people of the colonies. Under its pro- 
 tecting and superintending care, the colonies 
 were planted and grew up and prospered, 
 through a long course of years, until they be- 
 came populous and wealthy. Its benefits were 
 not limited to them. Their extensive agricul- 
 tural and other productions, gave birth to a 
 flourishing commerce, which richly rewarded 
 the parent country for the trouble and expense 
 of establishing and protecting them. Washing- 
 ton was born and grew up to manhood under 
 that Union. He acquired his early distinction in 
 its service, and there is every reason to believe 
 that he was devotedly attached to it. But his 
 devotion was a national one. He was attached 
 to it, not as an end, but as a means to an end. 
 When it failed to fulfil its end, and, instead of 
 affording protection, was converted into the 
 
156 JOHN C. CALHOUN. 
 
 means of oppressing the colonies, he did not 
 hesitate to draw his sword, and head the great 
 movement by which that union was forever 
 severed, and the independence of these States 
 established. This was the great and crowning 
 glory of his life, which has spread his fame over 
 the whole globe, and will transmit it to the 
 latest posterity. 
 
 Nor can the plan proposed by the distin- 
 guished Senator from Kentucky, nor that of 
 the administration, save the Union. 14 I shall 
 pass by, without remark, the plan proposed by 
 the Senator. I, however, assure the distin- 
 guished and able Senator, that, in taking this 
 course, no disrespect whatever is intended to 
 him or to his plan. I have adopted it because 
 so many Senators of distinguished abilities, who 
 were present when he delivered his speech, 11 
 and explained his plan, and who were fully 
 capable to do justice to the side they support, 
 have replied to him. * * * 16 
 
 Having now shown what cannot save the 
 Union, I return to the question with which I 
 commenced, How can the Union be saved? 
 There is but one way by which it can with any 
 certainty ; and that is, by a full and final settle- 
 ment, on the principle of justice, of all the ques- 
 
THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 1 57 
 
 tions at issue between the two sections. The 
 South asks for justice, simple justice, and less 
 she ought not to take. She has no compromise 
 to offer, but the Constitution ; and no conces- 
 sion or surrender to make. She has already 
 surrendered so much that she has little left to 
 surrender. Such a settlement would go to the 
 root of the evil, and remove all cause of dis- 
 content, by satisfying the South that she could 
 remain honorably and safely in the Union, and 
 thereby restore the harmony and fraternal feel- 
 ings between the sections, which existed ante- 
 rior to the Missouri agitation. Nothing else can, 
 with any certainty, finally and forever settle the 
 question at issue, terminate agitation, and save 
 the Union. 
 
 But can this be done? Yes, easily; not by 
 the weaker party, for it can, of itself do nothing, 
 not even protect itself but by the stronger. 
 The North has only to will it to accomplish it 
 to do justice by conceding to the South an 
 equal right in the acquired territory, and to do 
 her duty by causing the stipulations relative to 
 fugitive slaves to be faithfully fulfilled, to cease 
 the agitation of the slave question, and to pro- 
 vide for the insertion of a provision in the Con- 
 stitution, by an amendment, which will restore 
 
I $8 JOHN C. CALHOUN. 
 
 to the South, in substance, the power she pos- 
 sessed of protecting herself, before the equi- 
 librium between the sections was destroyed by 
 the action of this Government." There will be 
 no difficulty in devising such a provision one 
 that will protect the South, and which, at the 
 same time, will improve and strengthen the 
 Government, instead of impairing and weaken- 
 ing it. 
 
 But will the North agree to this? It is for 
 her to answer the question. But, I will say, 
 she cannot refuse, if she has half the love for 
 the Union which she professes to have, or with- 
 out justly exposing herself to the charge that 
 her love of power and aggrandizement is far 
 greater than her love of the Union. At all 
 events the responsibility of saving the Union 
 rests on the North, and not on the South. The 
 South cannot save it by any act of hers, and 
 the North may save it without any sacrifice 
 whatever, unless to do justice, and to perform 
 her duties under the Constitution, should be 
 regarded by her as a sacrifice. 
 
 It is time, Senators, that there should be an 
 open and manly avowal on all sides, as to what 
 is intended to be done. If the question is not 
 now settled, it is uncertain whether it ever can 
 
THE SLAVERY QUESTION. I $9 
 
 hereafter be ; and we, as the representatives of 
 the States of this Union, regarded as govern- 
 ments, should come to a distinct understanding 
 as to our respective views, in order to ascertain 
 whether the great questions at issue can be 
 settled or not. If you, who represent the 
 stronger portion, cannot agree to settle on the 
 broad principle of justice and duty, say so ; and 
 let the States we both represent agree to sepa- 
 rate and part in peace. If you are unwilling 
 we should part in peace, tell us so, and we shall 
 know what to do, when you reduce the ques- 
 tion to submission or resistance. If you remain 
 silent, you will compel us to infer by your acts 
 what you intend. In that case, California will 
 become the test question. If you admit her, 
 under all the difficulties that oppose her admis- 
 sion, you compel us to infer that you intend to 
 exclude us from the whole of the acquired ter- 
 ritories, with the intention of destroying, irre- 
 trievably, the equilibrium between the two sec- 
 tions. We would be blind not to perceive in 
 that case, that your real objects are power and 
 aggrandizement, and infatuated, not to act 
 accordingly. 
 
 I have now, Senators, done my duty in ex- 
 pressing my opinions fully, freely and candidly, 
 
l6o JOHN C. CALHOUN. 
 
 on this solemn occasion. In doing so, I have 
 been governed by the motives which have gov- 
 erned me in all the stages of the agitation of 
 the slavery question since its commencement. 
 I have exerted myself, during the whole period, 
 to arrest it, with the intention of saving the 
 Union, if it could be done; and if it could not, 
 to save the section where it has pleased Provi- 
 dence to cast my lot, and which I sincerely be- 
 lieve has justice and the Constitution on its side. 
 Having faithfully done my duty to the best of 
 my ability, both to the Union and my section, 
 throughout this agitation, I shall have the con- 
 solation, let what will come, that I am free 
 from all responsibility. 18 
 
DANIEL WEBSTER,* 
 
 OF MASSACHUSETTS. 1 
 (BORN, 1782, DIED, 1852.) 
 
 ON THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION; SENATE 
 
 OF THE UNITED STATES, MARCH 7, 1850.* 
 
 MR. PRESIDENT : 
 
 I wish to speak to-day, not as a Massachu- 
 setts man, nor as a northern man, but as an 
 American, and a member of the Senate of the 
 United States. It is fortunate that there is a 
 Senate of the United States ; a body not yet 
 moved from its propriety, nor lost to a just 
 sense of its own dignity and its own high respon- 
 sibilities, and a body to which the country looks, 
 with confidence, for wise, moderate, patriotic, 
 and healing counsels. It is not to be denied 
 that we live in the midst of strong agitations and 
 are surrounded by very considerable dangers to 
 our institutions and government. The impris- 
 oned winds are let loose. The East, the North, 
 and the stormy South combine to throw the 
 whole sea into commotion, to toss its billows to 
 
 * For notes on Webster, see Appendix, p. 388= 
 
 VOL. II. II. 161 
 
162 DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 the skies, and disclose its profoundest depths. I 
 do not affect to regard myself, Mr. President, as 
 holding, or fit to hold, the helm in this combat 
 with the political elements ; but I have a duty 
 to perform, and I mean to perform it with 
 fidelity, not without a sense of existing dangers, 
 but not without hope. I have a part to act, 
 not for my own security or safety, for I am 
 looking out for no fragment upon which to float 
 away from the wreck, if wreck there must be, 
 but for the good of the whole, and the preserve 
 tion of all ; and there is that which will keep 
 me to my duty during this struggle, whether 
 the sun and the stars shall appear for many 
 days. I speak to-day for the preservation of 
 the Union. " Hear me for my cause." I speak 
 to-day out of a solicitous and anxious heart, for 
 the restoration to the country of that quiet and 
 that harmony which make the blessings of this 
 Union so rich, and so dear to us all. These are 
 the topics that I propose to myself to discuss ; 
 these are the motives, and the sole motives, 
 that influence me in the wish to communicate 
 my opinions to the Senate and the country ; and 
 if I can do any thing, however little, for the 
 promotion of these ends, I shall have accom- 
 plished all that I expect. 
 
THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION. 163 
 
 * * * 3 \Ve all know, sir, that slavery has ex- 
 isted in the world from time immemorial. There 
 was slavery in the earliest periods of history, 
 among the Oriental nations. There was slavery 
 among the Jews ; the theocratic government of 
 that people issued no injunction against it. There 
 was slavery among the Greeks. * * * 4 At 
 the introduction of Christianity, the Roman 
 world was full of slaves, and I suppose there is 
 to be found no injunction against that relation 
 between man and man in the teachings of the 
 Gospel of Jesus Christ or of any of his apostles. 
 * * * 5 Now, sir, upon the general nature 
 and influence of slavery there exists a wide dif- 
 ference of opinion between the northern portion 
 of this country and the southern. It is said on 
 the one side, that, although not the subject of 
 any injunction or direct prohibition in the New 
 Testament, slavery is a wrong ; that it is found- 
 ed merely in the right of the strongest ; and 
 that it is an oppression, like unjust wars, like 
 all those conflicts by which a powerful nation 
 subjects a weaker to its will ; and that, in its 
 nature, whatever may be said of it in the modi- 
 fications which have taken place, it is not accord- 
 ing to the meek spirit of the Gospel. It is not 
 " kindly affectioned " ; it does not " seek anoth- 
 
1 64 DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 er's, and not its own "; it does not " let the op- 
 pressed go free." These are sentiments that are 
 cherished, and of late with greatly augmented 
 force, among the people of the Northern States. 
 They have taken hold of the religious sentiment 
 of that part of the country, as they have, more 
 or less, taken hold of the religious feelings of a 
 considerable portion of mankind. The South 
 upon the other side, having been accustomed 
 to this relation between the two races all their 
 lives ; from their birth, having been taught, in 
 general, to treat the subjects of this bondage 
 with care and kindness, and I believe, in gene- 
 ral, feeling great kindness for them, have not 
 taken the view of the subject which I have 
 mentioned. There are thousands of religious 
 men, with consciences as tender as any of their 
 brethren at the North, who do not see the un- 
 lawfulness of slavery ; and there are more thou- 
 sands, perhaps, that, whatsoever they may think 
 of it in its origin, and as a matter depending upon 
 natural rights, yet take things as they are, and, 
 finding slavery to be an established relation of the 
 society in which they live, can see no way in 
 which, let their opinions on the abstract ques- 
 tion be what they may, it is in the power 
 of this generation to relieve themselves from 
 
THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION. 165 
 
 this relation. And candor obliges me to say, 
 that I believe they are just as conscientious 
 many of them, and the religious people, all of 
 them, as they are at the North who hold differ- 
 ent opinions. * * * 
 
 There are men who, with clear perceptions, 
 as they think, of their own duty, do not see 
 how too eager a pursuit of one duty may in- 
 volve them in the violation of others, or how 
 too warm an embracement of one truth may 
 lead to a disregard of other truths just as im- 
 portant. As I heard it stated strongly, not 
 many days ago, these persons are disposed to 
 mount upon some particular duty, as upon 
 a war-horse, and to drive furiously on and upon 
 and over all other duties that may stand in the 
 way. There are men who, in reference to dis- 
 putes of that sort, are of opinion that human 
 duties may be ascertained with the exactness of 
 mathematics. They deal with morals as with 
 mathematics ; and they think what is right may 
 be distinguished from what is wrong with the 
 precision of an algebraic equation. They have, 
 therefore, none too much charity toward others 
 who differ from them. They are apt, too, to 
 think that nothing is good but what is per- 
 fect, and that there are no compromises or 
 
1 66 DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 modifications to be made in consideration of 
 difference of opinion or in deference to other 
 men's judgment. If their perspicacious vision 
 enables them to detect a spot on the face of 
 the sun, they think that a good reason why the 
 sun should be struck down from heaven. 7 They 
 prefer the chance of running into utter darkness 
 to living in heavenly light, if that heavenly 
 light be not absolutely without any imperfec- 
 tion. * * * 8 
 
 But we must view things as they are. Slavery 
 does exist in the United States. It did exist 
 in the States before the adoption of this Con- 
 stitution, and at that time. Let us, therefore, 
 consider for a moment what was the state 
 of sentiment, North and South, in regard to 
 slavery, in regard to slavery, at the time 
 this Constitution was adopted. A remarkable 
 change has taken place since ; but what did the 
 wise and great men of all parts of the country 
 think of slavery then ? In what estimation did 
 they hold it at the time when this Constitution 
 was adopted ? It will be found, sir, if we will 
 carry ourselves by historical research back to 
 that day, and ascertain men's opinions by au- 
 thentic records still existing among us, that 
 there was no diversity of opinion between 
 
THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION. l6? 
 
 the North and the South upon the subject of 
 slavery. It will be found that both parts of 
 the country held it equally an evil, a moral and 
 political evil. It will not be found that, either 
 at the North or at the South, there was much, 
 though there was some, invective against 
 slavery as inhuman and cruel. The great 
 ground of objection to it was political ; that it 
 weakened the social fabric ; that, taking the 
 place of free labor, society became less strong 
 and labor less productive ; and therefore we 
 find from all the eminent men of the time the 
 clearest expression of their opinion that slavery 
 is an evil. They ascribed its existence here, 
 not without truth, and not without some acerbi- 
 ty of temper and force of language, to the in- 
 jurious policy of the mother country, who, to 
 favor the navigator, had entailed these evils 
 upon the colonies. * * * 9 You observe, sir, 
 that the term slave, or slavery, is not used 
 in the Constitution. The Constitution does 
 not require that " fugitive slaves " shall be de- 
 livered up. It requires that persons held to 
 service in one State, and escaping into another, 
 shall be delivered up. Mr. Madison opposed 
 the introduction of the term slave, or slavery, 
 into the Constitution ; for he said, that he did 
 
168 DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 not wish to see it recognized by the Constitu- 
 tion of the United States of America that 
 there could be property in men. * * * 10 
 
 Here we may pause. There was, if not an entire 
 unanimity, a general concurrence of sentiment 
 running through the whole community, and 
 especially entertained by the eminent men of 
 all parts of the country. But soon a change 
 began, at the North and the South, and a differ- 
 ence of opinion showed itself ; the North grow- 
 ing much more warm and strong against 
 slavery, and the South growing much more 
 warm and strong in its support. Sir, there is 
 no generation of mankind whose opinions are 
 not subject to be influenced by what appear to 
 them to be their present emergent and exigent 
 interests. I impute to the South no particu- 
 larly selfish view in the change which has come 
 over her. I impute to her certainly no dis- 
 honest view. All that has happened has been 
 natural. It has followed those causes which al- 
 ways influence the human mind and operate 
 upon it. What, then, have been the causes 
 which have created so new a feeling in favor of 
 slavery in the South, which have changed the 
 whole nomenclature of the South on that sub- 
 ject, so that, from being thought and described in 
 the terms I have mentioned and will not repeat, 
 
THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION. 169 
 
 it has now become an institution, a cherished 
 institution, in that quarter ; no evil, no scourge, 
 but a great religious, social, and moral blessing, 
 as I think I have heard it latterly spoken of ? 
 I suppose this, sir, is owing to the rapid growth 
 and sudden extension of the cotton planta- 
 tions of the South. So far as any motive con- 
 sistent with honor, justice, and general judg- 
 ment could act, it was the cotton interest that 
 gave a new desire to promote slavery, to spread 
 it, and to use its labor. 
 
 I again say that this change was produced 
 by causes which must always produce like ef- 
 fects. The whole interest of the South became 
 connected, more or less, with the extension of 
 slavery. If we look back to the history of the 
 commerce of this country in the early years of 
 this government, what were our exports ? Cot- 
 ton was hardly, or but to a very limited extent, 
 known. In 1791 the first parcel of cotton of 
 the growth of the United States was exported, 
 and amounted only to 19,200 pounds. It has 
 gone on increasing rapidly, until the whole crop 
 may now, perhaps, in a season of great product 
 and high prices, amount to a hundred millions 
 of dollars. In the years I have mentioned, 
 there was more of wax, more of indigo, more 
 of rice, more of almost every article of export 
 
DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 from the South, than of cotton. When Mr. 
 Jay negotiated the treaty of 1794 with Eng- 
 land, it is evident from the Twelfth Article of 
 the Treaty, which was suspended by the Senate, 
 that he did not know that cotton was exported 
 at all from the United States. 
 
 # * % * * * * u 
 Sir, there is not so remarkable a chapter in 
 our history of political events, political parties, 
 and political men as is afforded by this admis- 
 sion of a new slave-holding territory, so vast 
 that a bird cannot fly over it in a week. New 
 England, as I have said, with some of her own 
 votes, supported this measure. Three-fourths 
 of the votes of liberty-loving Connecticut were 
 given for it in the other house, and one half 
 here. There was one vote for it from Maine 
 but, I am happy to say, not the vote of the 
 honorable member who addressed the Senate 
 the day before yesterday, 12 and who was then 
 a Representative from Maine in the House of 
 Representatives ; but there was one vote from 
 Maine, ay, and there was one vote for it from 
 Massachusetts, 13 given by a gentleman then rep- 
 resenting, and now living in, the district in 
 which the prevalence of Free Soil sentiment 
 for a couple of years or so has defeated the 
 choice of any member to represent it in Con- 
 
THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION. I /I 
 
 gress. 14 Sir, that body of Northern and Eastern 
 men who gave those votes at that time are now 
 seen taking upon themselves, in the nomencla- 
 ture of politics, the appellation of the Northern 
 Democracy. 15 They undertook to wield the 
 destinies of this empire, if I may give that 
 name to a Republic, and their policy was, and 
 they persisted in it, to bring into this country 
 and under this government all the territory 
 they could. They did it, in the case of Texas, 
 under pledges, absolute pledges, to the slave 
 interest, and they afterwards lent their aid in 
 bringing in these new conquests, to take their 
 chance for slavery or freedom. My honorable 
 friend from Georgia, 16 in March, 1847, moved 
 the Senate to declare that the war ought not 
 to be prosecuted for the conquest of territory, 
 or for the dismemberment of Mexico. The 
 whole of the Northern Democracy voted against 
 it. He did not get a vote from them. It 
 suited the patriotic and elevated sentiments of 
 the Northern Democracy to bring in a world 
 from among the mountains and valleys of Cali- 
 fornia and New Mexico, or any other part of 
 Mexico, and then quarrel about it ; to bring it 
 in, and then endeavor to put upon it the saving 
 grace of the Wilmot Proviso. There were two 
 eminent and highly respectable gentlemen from 
 
1 72 DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 the North and East, then leading gentlemen in 
 the Senate (I refer, and I do so with entire 
 respect, for I entertain for both of those gen- 
 tlemen, in general, high regard, to Mr. Dix of 
 New York and Mr. Niles of Connecticut), who 
 both voted for the admission of Texas. They 
 would not have that vote any other way than 
 as it stood ; and they would have it as it did 
 stand. I speak of the vote upon the annexa- 
 tion of Texas. Those two gentlemen would 
 have the resolution of annexation just as it is, 
 without amendment ; and they voted for it 
 just as it is, and their eyes were all open to its 
 true character. The honorable member from 
 South Carolina who addressed us the other day 
 was then Secretary of State. His correspond- 
 ence with Mr. Murphy, the Charge d'Affaires 
 of the United States in Texas, had been pub- 
 lished. That correspondence was all before 
 those gentlemen, and the Secretary had the 
 boldness and candor to avow in that corre- 
 spondence, that the great object sought by the 
 annexation of Texas was to strengthen the 
 slave interest of the South. Why, sir, he said 
 so in so many words. 
 
 Mr. Calhoun. Will the honorable Senator 
 permit me to interrupt him for a moment ? 
 
 Mr. Webster. Certainly. 
 
THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION. 173 
 
 Mr. Calhoun. I am very reluctant to inter- 
 rupt the honorable gentleman ; but, upon a 
 point of so much importance, I deem it right 
 to put myself rectus in curia. I did not put it 
 upon the ground assumed by the Senator. I 
 put it upon this ground ; that Great Britain 
 had announced to this country, in so many 
 words, that her object was to abolish slavery in 
 Texas, and, through Texas, to accomplish the 
 abolition of slavery in the United States and 
 the world. The ground I put it on was, that 
 it would make an exposed frontier, and, if 
 Great Britain succeeded in her object, it would 
 be impossible that that frontier could be se- 
 cured against the aggressions of the Abolition- 
 ists ; and that this Government was bound, 
 under the guaranties of the Constitution, to 
 protect us against such a state of things. 
 
 Mr. Webster. That comes, I suppose, Sir, 
 to exactly the same thing. It was, that Texas 
 must be obtained for the security of the slave 
 interest of the South. 
 
 Mr. Calhoun. Another view is very distinctly 
 given. 
 
 Mr. Webster. That was the object set forth 
 in the correspondence of a worthy gentleman 
 not now living, who preceded the honorable 
 member from South Carolina in the Depart- 
 
174 DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 ment of State. There repose on the files of the 
 Department, as I have occasion to know, strong 
 letters from Mr. Upshur to the United States 
 Minister in England, and I believe there are 
 some to the same Minister from the honorable 
 Senator himself, asserting to this effect the 
 sentiments of this government ; namely, that 
 Great Britain was expected not to interfere to 
 take Texas out of the hands of its then exist- 
 ing government and make it a free country. 
 But my argument, my suggestion, is this : that 
 those gentlemen who composed the Northern 
 Democracy when Texas was brought into the 
 Union saw clearly that it was brought in as a 
 slave country, and brought in for the purpose 
 of being maintained as slave territory, to the 
 Greek Kalends. 17 I rather think the honorable 
 gentleman who was then Secretary of State 
 might, in some of his correspondence with Mr. 
 Murphy, have suggested that it was not ex- 
 pedient to say too much about this object, 
 lest it should create some alarm. At any rate, 
 Mr. Murphy wrote to him that England was 
 anxious to get rid of the constitution of Texas, 
 because it was a constitution establishing 
 slavery ; and that what the United States had 
 to do was to aid the people of Texas in uphold- 
 ing their constitution ; but that nothing should 
 
THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION. 175 
 
 be said which should offend the fanatical men 
 of the North. But, Sir, the honorable member 
 did avow this object himself, openly, boldly, 
 and manfully ; he did not disguise his conduct 
 or his motives. 
 
 Mr. Calhoun. Never, never. 
 
 Mr. Webster. What he means he is very 
 apt to say. 
 
 Mr. Calhoun. Always, always. 
 
 Mr. Webster. And I honor him for it. 
 
 This admission of Texas was in 1845. Then 
 in 1847, flagrante bello between the United 
 States and Mexico, the proposition I have 
 mentioned was brought forward by my friend 
 from Georgia, and the Northern Democracy 
 voted steadily against it. Their remedy was 
 to apply to the acquisitions, after they should 
 come in, the Wilmot Proviso. What follows ? 
 These two gentlemen, worthy and honorable 
 and influential men (and if they had not been 
 they could not have carried the measure), these 
 two gentlemen, members of this body, brought 
 in Texas, and by their votes they also pre- 
 vented the passage of the resolution of the 
 honorable member from Georgia, and then 
 they went home and took the lead in the Free 
 Soil party. And there they stand, Sir ! They 
 leave us here, bound in honor and conscience 
 
DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 by the resolutions of annexation ; they leave 
 us here, to take the odium of fulfilling the 
 obligations in favor of slavery which they voted 
 us into, or else the greater odium of violating 
 those obligations, while they are at home 
 making capital and rousing speeches for free 
 soil and no slavery. And therefore I say, Sir, 
 that there is not a chapter in our history, re- 
 specting public measures and public men, more 
 full of what would create surprise, and more 
 full of what does create, in my mind, extreme 
 mortification, than that of the conduct of the 
 Northern Democracy on this subject. 
 
 Mr. President, sometimes when a man is 
 found in a new relation to things around him 
 and to other men, he says the world has 
 changed, and that he is not changed. I believe, 
 sir, that our self-respect leads us often to make 
 this declaration in regard to ourselves when it 
 is not exactly true. An individual is more apt 
 to change, perhaps, than all the world around 
 him. But under the present circumstances, 
 and under the responsibility which I know I 
 incur by what I am now stating here, I feel 
 at liberty to recur to the various expressions 
 and statements, made at various times, of my 
 own opinions and resolutions respecting the 
 admission of Texas, and all that has followed. 
 
THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION. 177 
 
 * * * " On other occasions, in debate here, 
 I have expressed my determination to vote for 
 no acquisition, or cession, or annexation, North 
 or South, East or West. My opinion has been, 
 that we have territory enough, and that we 
 should follow the Spartan maxim : " Improve, 
 adorn what you have," seek no further. I 
 think that it was in some observations that 
 I made on the three million loan bill 19 that I 
 avowed this sentiment. In short, sir, it has been 
 avowed quite as often in as many places, and 
 before as many assemblies, as any humble 
 opinions of mine ought to be avowed. 
 
 But now that, under certain conditions, Texas 
 is in the Union, with all her territory, as a 
 slave State, with a solemn pledge also that, if 
 she shall be divided into many States, those 
 States may come in as slave States south of 36 
 30', how are we to deal with this subject ? I 
 know no way of honest legislation, when the 
 proper time comes for the enactment, but to 
 carry into effect all that we have stipulated to 
 do. * * * ao That is the meaning of the con- 
 tract which our friends, the northern Democracy, 
 have left us to fulfil ; and I, for one, mean to 
 fulfil it, because I will not violate the faith of 
 the Government. What I mean to say is, that 
 
i;8 DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 the time for the admission of new States 
 formed out of Texas, the number of such States, 
 their boundaries, the requisite amount of popu- 
 lation, and all other things connected with the 
 admission, are in the free discretion of Congress, 
 except this : to wit, that when new States 
 formed out of Texas are to be admitted, they 
 have a right, by legal stipulation and contract, 
 to come in as slave States. 
 
 Now, as to California and New Mexico, I 
 hold slavery to be excluded from these terri- 
 tories by a law even superior to that which ad- 
 mits and sanctions it in Texas. I mean the 
 law of nature, of physical geography, the law of 
 the formation of the earth. That law settles 
 forever, with a strength beyond all terms of 
 human enactment, that slavery cannot exist in 
 California or New Mexico. 21 Understand me, 
 sir ; I mean slavery as we regard it ; the slavery 
 of the colored race as it exists in the southern 
 States. I shall not discuss the point, but leave 
 it to the learned gentlemen who have under- 
 taken to discuss it ; but I suppose there is no 
 slavery of that description in California now. 
 I understand iha.t fleonism, a sort of penal servi- 
 tude, exists there, or rather a sort of voluntary 
 sale of a man and his offspring for debt, an ar- 
 
THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION. 1 79 
 
 rangement of a peculiar nature known to the 
 law of Mexico. But what I mean to say is, 
 that it is impossible that African slavery, as we 
 see it among us, should find its way, or be intro- 
 duced, into California and New Mexico, as any 
 other natural impossibility. California and New 
 Mexico are Asiatic in their formation and 
 scenery. They are composed of vast ridges of 
 mountains of great height, with broken ridges 
 and deep valleys. The sides of these moun- 
 tains are entirely barren ; their tops capped by 
 perennial snow. There may be in California, 
 now made free by its constitution, and no doubt 
 there are, some tracts of valuable land. But it 
 is not so in New Mexico. Pray, what is the 
 evidence which every gentleman must have ob- 
 tained on this subject, from information sought 
 by himself or communicated by others ? I have 
 inquired and read all I could find, in order to- 
 acquire information on this important subject. 
 What is there in New Mexico that could, by 
 any possibility, induce anybody to go there 
 with slaves ! There are some narrow strips of 
 tillable land on the borders of the rivers ; but 
 the rivers themselves dry up before midsummer 
 is gone. All that the people can do in that 
 region is to raise some little articles, some little 
 
180 DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 wheat for their tortillas, and that by irrigation. 
 And who expects to see a hundred black men 
 cultivating tobacco, corn, cotton, rice, or any 
 thing else, on lands in New Mexico, made fer- 
 tile by irrigation ? 
 
 I look upon it, therefore, as a fixed fact, to 
 use the current expression of the day, that both 
 California and New Mexico are destined to be 
 free, so far as they are settled at all, which I 
 believe, in regard to New Mexico, will be but 
 partially, for a great length of time ; free by 
 the arrangement of things ordained by the 
 Power above us. I have therefore to say, in 
 this respect also, that this country is fixed for 
 freedom, to as many persons as shall ever live 
 in it, by a less repealable law than that which 
 attaches to the right of holding slaves in Texas ; 
 and I will say further, that, if a resolution or a 
 bill were now before us, to provide a territorial 
 government for New Mexico, I would not vote 
 to put any prohibition into it whatever. Such 
 a prohibition would be idle, as it respects any 
 effect it would have upon the territory ; and I 
 would not take pains uselessly to reaffirm an 
 ordinance of nature, nor to re-enact the will of 
 God." I would put in no Wilmot proviso for 
 the mere purpose of a taunt or a reproach. I 
 
CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION. l8l 
 
 would put into it no evidence of the votes of 
 superior power, exercised for no purpose but to 
 wound the pride, whether a just and a rational 
 pride, or an irrational pride, of the citizens of 
 the southern States. I have no such object, 
 no such purpose. They would think it a taunt, 
 an indignity ; they would think it to be an act 
 taking away from them what they regard as a 
 proper equality of privilege. Whether they 
 expect to realize any benefit from it or not, 
 they would think it at least a plain theoretic 
 wrong ; that something more or less derogatory 
 to their character and their rights had taken 
 place. I propose to inflict no such wound upon 
 anybody, unless something essentially import- 
 ant to the country, and efficient to the preser- 
 vation of liberty and freedom, is to be effected. 
 I repeat, therefore, sir, and, as I do not pro- 
 pose to address the Senate often on this sub- 
 ject, I repeat it because I wish it to be dis- 
 tinctly understood, that, for the reasons stated, 
 if a proposition were now here to establish a 
 government for New Mexico, and it was moved 
 to insert a provision for a prohibition of 
 slavery, I would not vote for it. * * * a8 Sir, 
 we hear occasionally of the annexation of 
 Canada ; and if there be any man, any of the 
 
!g2 DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 northern Democracy, or any of the Free Soil 
 party, who supposes it necessary to insert a 
 Wilmot Proviso in a territorial government for 
 New Mexico, that man would, of course, be of 
 opinion that it is necessary to protect the ever- 
 lasting snows of Canada from the foot of slav- 
 ery by the same overspreading wing of an act 
 of Congress. Sir, wherever there is a sub- 
 stantive good to be done, wherever there is a 
 foot of land to be prevented from becoming 
 slave territory, I am ready to assert the principle 
 of the exclusion of slavery. I am pledged to 
 it from the year 1837 ; I have been pledged to 
 it again and again ; and I will perform these 
 pledges; but I will not do a thing unneces- 
 sarily that wounds the feelings of others, or 
 that does discredit to my own understand- 
 ing. * * *' 4 
 
 Mr. President, in the excited times in which 
 we live, there is found to exist a state of crimi- 
 nation and recrimination between the North 
 and South. There are lists of grievances pro- 
 duced by each; and those grievances, real or 
 supposed, alienate the minds of one portion of 
 the country from the other, exasperate the 
 feelings, and subdue the sense of fraternal 
 affection, patriotic love, and mutual regard. I 
 
THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION. 183 
 
 shall bestow a little attention, sir, upon these 
 various grievances existing on the one side and 
 on the other. I begin with complaints of the 
 South. I will not answer, further than I have, 
 the general statements of the honorable Sena- 
 tor from South Carolina, that the North has 
 prospered at the expense of the South in con- 
 sequence of the manner of administering this 
 Government, in the collection of its revenues, 
 and so forth. These are disputed topics, and I 
 have no inclination to enter into them. But I 
 will allude to other complaints of the South, 
 and especially to one which has in my opinion, 
 just foundation ; and that is, that there has 
 been found at the North, among individuals 
 and among legislators, a disinclination to per- 
 form fully their constitutional duties in regard 
 to the return of persons bound to service who 
 have escaped into the free States. In that 
 respect, the South, in my judgment, is right, 
 and the North is wrong. Every member of 
 every Northern legislature is bound by oath, 
 like every other officer in the country, to sup- 
 port the Constitution of the United States; 
 and the article of the Constitution which says 
 to these States that they shall deliver up fugi- 
 tives from service, is as binding in honor and 
 
184 DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 conscience as any other article. No man fulfils 
 his duty in any legislature who sets himself to 
 find excuses, evasions, escapes from this con- 
 stitutional obligation. I have always thought 
 that the Constitution addressed itself to the 
 legislatures of the States or to the States them- 
 selves. It says that those persons escaping to 
 other States "shall be delivered up," and I con- 
 fess I have always been of the opinion that it 
 was an injunction upon the States themselves. 
 When it is said that a person escaping into 
 another State, and coming therefore within the 
 jurisdiction of that State, shall be delivered up, 
 it seems to me the import of the clause is, that 
 the State itself, in obedience to the Constitu- 
 tion, shall cause him to be delivered up. That 
 is my judgment. I have always entertained 
 that opinion, and I entertain it now. But 
 when the subject, some years ago, was before 
 the Supreme Court of the United States, the 
 majority of the judges held that the power to 
 cause fugitives from service to be delivered 
 up was a power to be exercised under the 
 authority of this Government." I do not know, 
 on the whole, that it may not have been a 
 fortunate decision. My habit is to respect 
 the result of judicial deliberations and the 
 
THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION. 185 
 
 solemnity of judicial decisions. As it now 
 stands, the business of seeing that these fugi- 
 tives are delivered up resides in the power of 
 Congress and the national judicature, and my 
 friend at the head of the Judiciary Committee 26 
 has a bill on the subject now before the Senate, 
 which, with some amendments to it, I propose 
 to support, with all its provisions, to the fullest 
 extent. And I desire to call the attention of 
 all sober-minded men at the North, of all con- 
 scientious men, of all men who are not carried 
 away by some fanatical idea or some false im- 
 pression, to their constitutional obligations. I 
 put it to all the sober and sound minds at the 
 North as a question of morals and a question of 
 conscience. What right have they, in their 
 legislative capacity, or any other capacity, to 
 endeavor to get round this Constitution, or to 
 embarrass the free exercise of the rights secured 
 by the Constitution, to the person whose slaves 
 escape from them ? None at all ; none at all. 
 Neither in the forum of conscience, nor before 
 the face of the Constitution, are they, in my 
 opinion, justified in such an attempt. Of course 
 it is a matter for their consideration. They 
 probably, in the excitement of the times, have 
 not stopped to consider this. They have fol- 
 
1 86 DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 lowed what seemed to be the current of thought 
 and of motives, as the occasion arose, and they 
 have neglected to investigate fully the real ques- 
 tion, and to consider their constitutional obliga- 
 tions; which, I am sure, if they did consider, 
 they would fulfil with alacrity." I repeat, there- 
 fore, sir, that here is a well-founded ground of 
 complaint against the North, which ought to be 
 removed, which is now in the power of the diff- 
 erent departments of this government to re- 
 move ; which calls for the enactment of proper 
 laws authorizing the judicature of this Govern- 
 ment, in the several States, to do all that is 
 necessary for the recapture of fugitive slaves 
 and for their restoration to those who claim 
 them. Wherever I go, and whenever I speak 
 on the subject, and when I speak here I desire 
 to speak to the whole North, I say that the 
 South has been injured in this respect, and has 
 a right to complain ; and the North has been 
 too careless of what I think the Constitution 
 peremptorily and emphatically enjoins upon 
 her as a duty. 
 
 Complaint has been made against certain 
 resolutions that emanate from legislatures at 
 the North, and are sent here to us, not only on 
 the subject of slavery in this District, but some- 
 
THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION. 187 
 
 times recommending Congress to consider the 
 means of abolishing slavery in the States. I 
 should be sorry to be called upon to present 
 any resolutions here which could not be refer- 
 able to any committee or any power in Con- 
 gress; and therefore I should be unwilling to 
 receive from the legislature of Massachusetts 
 any instructions to present resolutions expres- 
 sive of any opinion whatever on the subject of 
 slavery, as it exists at the present moment in 
 the States, for two reasons : because I do not 
 consider that I, as her representative here, have 
 any thing to do with it. It has become, in my 
 opinion, quite too common ; and if the legis- 
 latures of the States do not like that opinion, 
 they have a great deal more power to put it 
 down than I have to uphold it ; it has become, 
 in my opinion, quite too common a practice for 
 the State legislatures to present resolutions 
 here on all subjects and to instruct us on all 
 subjects. There is no public man that requires 
 instruction more than I do, or who requires 
 information more than I do, or desires it more 
 heartily ; but I do not like to have it in too 
 imperative a shape. * * * " 
 
 Then, sir, there are the Abolition societies, 
 of which I am unwilling to speak, but in regard 
 
1 88 DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 to which I have very clear notions and opin- 
 ions. I do not think them useful. I think 
 their operations for the last twenty years have 
 produced nothing good or valuable. At the 
 same time, I believe thousands of their mem- 
 bers to be honest and good men, perfectly well- 
 meaning men. They have excited feelings ; 
 they think they must do something for the 
 cause of liberty ; and, in their sphere of action, 
 they do not see what else they can do than to 
 contribute to an abolition press, or an aboli- 
 tion society, or to pay an abolition lecturer. I 
 do not mean to impute gross motives even to 
 the leaders of these societies, but I am not 
 blind to the consequences of their proceedings. 
 I cannot but see what mischief their interfer- 
 ence with the South has produced. And is it 
 not plain to every man ? Let any gentleman 
 who entertains doubts on this point, recur to 
 the debates in the Virginia House of Delegates 
 in 1832, and he will see with what freedom a 
 proposition made by Mr. Jefferson Randolph, 
 for the gradual abolition of slavery was dis- 
 cussed in that body." Every one spoke of 
 slavery as he thought ; very ignominous and 
 disparaging names and epithets were applied to 
 it. The debates in the House of Delegates on 
 
- THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION. 189 
 
 that occasion, I believe were all published. 
 They were read by every colored man who 
 could read, and to those who could not read, 
 those debates were read by others. At that 
 time Virginia was not unwilling or afraid to 
 discuss this question, and to let that part of her 
 population know as much of the discussion 
 as they could learn. That was in 1832. As 
 has been said by the honorable member from 
 South Carolina, these abolition societies com- 
 menced their course of action in 1835. It is 
 said, I do not know how true it may be, that 
 they sent incendiary publications into the slave 
 States ; at any rate, they attempted to arouse, 
 and did arouse, a very strong feeling ; in other 
 words, they created great agitation in the 
 North against Southern slavery. Well, what 
 was the result ? The bonds of the slaves were 
 bound more firmly than before, their rivets 
 were more strongly fastened.' Public opinion, 
 which in Virginia had begun to be exhibited 
 against slavery, and was opening out for the 
 discussion of the question, drew back and shut 
 itself up in its castle. I wish to know whether 
 anybody in Virginia can now talk openly, as 
 Mr. Randolph, Governor McDowel, and others 
 talked in 1832, and sent their remarks to the 
 
I QO DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 press ? We all know the fact, and we all know 
 the cause ; and every thing that these agitating 
 people have done has been, not to enlarge, but 
 to restrain, not to set free, but to bind faster, 
 the slave population of the South. * * * " 
 There are also complaints of the North 
 against the South. I need not go over them 
 particularly. The first and gravest is, that the 
 North adopted the Constitution, recognizing 
 the existence of slavery in the States, and rec- 
 ognizing the right, to a certain extent, of the 
 representation of slaves in Congress, under a 
 state of sentiment and expectation which does 
 not now exist ; and that by events, by circum- 
 stances, by the eagerness of the South to ac- 
 quire territory and extend her slave population, 
 the North finds itself, in regard to the relative 
 influence of the South and the North, of the 
 free States and the slave States, where it never 
 did expect to find itself when they agreed to 
 the compact of the Constitution. They com- 
 plain, therefore, that, instead of slavery being 
 regarded as an evil, as it was then, an evil 
 which all hoped would be extinguished gradu- 
 ally, it is now regarded by the South as an 
 institution to be cherished, and preserved, and 
 extended ; an institution which the South has 
 
THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION. 191 
 
 already extended to the utmost of her power 
 by the acquisition of new territory. 
 
 Well, then, passing from that, everybody in 
 the North reads ; and everybody reads what- 
 soever the newspapers contain ; and the news- 
 papers, some of them, especially those presses 
 to which I have alluded, are careful to spread 
 about among the people every reproachful sen- 
 timent uttered by any Southern man bearing 
 at all against the North ; every thing that is 
 calculated to exasperate and to alienate ; and 
 there are many such things, as everybody will 
 admit, from the South, or from portions of it, 
 which are disseminated among the reading 
 people ; and they do exasperate, and alienate, 
 and produce a most mischievous effect upon 
 the public mind at the North. Sir, I would 
 not notice things of this sort appearing in ob- 
 scure quarters ; but one thing has occurred 
 in this debate which struck me very forcibly. 
 An honorable member from Louisiana" ad- 
 dressed us the other day on this subject. I 
 suppose there is not a more amiable and worthy 
 gentleman in this chamber, nor a gentleman 
 who would be more slow to give offence to any 
 body, and he did not mean in his remarks to 
 give offence. But what did he say ? Why, 
 
IQ2 DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 sir, he took pains to run a contrast between the 
 slaves of the South and the laboring people of 
 the North, giving the preference, in all points 
 of condition, and comfort, and happiness to 
 the slaves of the South. The honorable mem- 
 ber, doubtless, did not suppose that he gave 
 any offence, or did any injustice. He was 
 merely expressing his opinion. But does he 
 know how remarks of that sort will be received 
 by the laboring people of the North ? Why, 
 who are the laboring people of the North? 
 They are the whole North. They are the 
 people who till their own farms with their own 
 hands ; freeholders, educated men, indepen- 
 dent men. Let me say, sir, that five sixths of 
 the whole property of the North is in the 
 hands of the laborers of the North ; 3S they culti- 
 vate their farms, they educate their children, 
 they provide the means of independence. If 
 they are not freeholders, they earn wages ; 
 these wages accumulate, are turned into capi- 
 tal, into new freeholds, and small capitalists 
 are created. Such is the case, and such the 
 course of things, among the industrious and 
 frugal. And what can these people think 
 when so respectable and worthy a gentleman 
 as the member from Louisiana undertakes to 
 
THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION. 193 
 
 prove that the absolute ignorance and the ab- 
 ject slavery of the South are more in conformity 
 with the high purposes and destiny of immor- 
 tal, rational, human beings, than the educated, 
 the independent free labor of the North ? 
 
 There is a more tangible and irritating cause 
 of grievance at the North. Free blacks are 
 constantly employed in the vessels of the 
 North, generally as cooks or stewards. When 
 the vessel arrives at a southern port, these free 
 colored men are taken on shore, by the police 
 or municipal authority, imprisoned, and kept 
 in prison till the vessel is again ready to sail. 
 This is not only irritating, but exceedingly un- 
 justifiable and oppressive. Mr. Hoar's mission, 
 some time ago to South Carolina, was a well- 
 intended effort to remove this cause of com- 
 plaint. The North thinks such imprisonments 
 illegal and unconstitutional ; and as the cases 
 occur constantly and frequently they regard it 
 as a grievance." 
 
 Now, sir, so far as any of these grievances 
 have their foundation in matters of law, they 
 can be redressed, and ought to be redressed ; 
 and so far as they have their foundation in 
 matters of opinion, in sentiment, in mutual 
 crimination and recrimination, all that we can 
 
 VOL. II. 13. 
 
194 DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 do is to endeavor to allay the agitation, and 
 cultivate a better feeling and more fraternal 
 sentiments between the South and the North. 
 
 Mr. President, I should much prefer to have 
 heard from every member on this floor declara- 
 tions of opinion that this Union could never be 
 dissolved, than the declaration of opinion by 
 anybody, that in any case, under the pressure 
 of any circumstances, such a dissolution was 
 possible. I hear with distress and anguish the 
 word " secession," especially when it falls from 
 the lips of those who are patriotic, and known 
 to the country, and known all over the world 
 for their political services. Secession ! Peace- 
 able secession ! Sir, your eyes and mine are 
 never destined to see that miracle. The dis- 
 memberment of this vast country without con- 
 vulsion ! The breaking up of the fountains of 
 the great deep without ruffling the surface ! 
 Who is so foolish I beg everybody's pardon 
 as to expect to see any such thing ? Sir, he 
 who sees these States, now revolving in har- 
 mony around a common centre, and expects to 
 see them quit their places and fly off without 
 convulsion, may look the next hour to see the 
 heavenly bodies rush from their spheres, and 
 jostle against each other in the realms of space, 
 
THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION. 195 
 
 without causing the wreck of the universe. 
 There can be no such thing as a peaceable 
 secession. Peaceable secession is an utter irn^ 
 possibility. Is the great Constitution under 
 which we live, covering this whole country, is 
 it to be thawed and melted away by secession, 
 as the snows on the mountain melt under the 
 influence of a vernal sun, disappear almost un- 
 observed, and run off ? No, sir ! No, sir ! I 
 will not state what might produce the disrup- 
 tion of the Union ; but, sir, I see as plainly as 
 I can see the sun in heaven what that disrup- 
 tion itself must produce ; I see that it must 
 produce war, and such a war as I will not 
 describe, in its twofold character. 
 
 Peaceable secession ! Peaceable secession ! 
 The concurrent agreement of all the members 
 of this great Republic to separate ! A volun- 
 tary separation, with alimony on one side 
 and on the other. Why, what would be the 
 result ? Where is the line to be drawn ? What 
 States are to secede ? What is to remain 
 American ? What am I to be ? An American 
 no longer ? Am I to become a sectional man, 
 a local man, a separatist, with no country in 
 common with the gentlemen who sit around 
 me here, or who fill the other house of Con- 
 
196 DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 gress ? Heaven forbid ! Where is the flag of 
 the Republic to remain ? Where is the eagle 
 still to tower ? or is he to cower, and shrink, 
 and fall to the ground ? Why, sir, our ances- 
 tors, our fathers and our grandfathers, those of 
 them that are yet living amongst us with pro- 
 longed lives, would rebuke and reproach us ; 
 and our children and our grandchildren would 
 cry out shame upon us, if we of this generation 
 should dishonor these ensigns of the power of 
 the Government and the harmony of that Union 
 which is every day felt among us with so much 
 joy and gratitude. What is to become of the 
 army ? What is to become of the navy ? What 
 is to become of the public lands ? How is each 
 of the thirty States to defend itself ? I know, 
 although the idea has not been stated dis- 
 tinctly, there is to be, or it is supposed possible 
 that there will be, a Southern Confederacy. I 
 do not mean, when I allude to this statement, 
 that any one seriously contemplates such a 
 state of things. I do not mean to say that it 
 is true, but I have heard it suggested elsewhere, 
 that the idea has been entertained, that, aftei 
 the dissolution of this Union, a Southern Con- 
 federacy might be formed. I am sorry, sir, that 
 it has ever been thought of, talked of, in the 
 
THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION. !$? 
 
 wildest flights of human imagination. But the 
 idea, so far as it exists, must be of a separation, 
 assigning the slave States to one side, and the 
 free States to the other. Sir, I may express 
 myself too strongly, perhaps, but there are im- 
 possibilities in the natural as well as in the phy- 
 sical world, and I hold the idea of the separation 
 of these States, those that are free to form one 
 government, and those that are slave-holding 
 to form another, as such an impossibility. We 
 could not separate the States by any such line, 
 if we were to draw it. We could not sit down 
 here to-day and draw a line of separation that 
 would satisfy any five men in the country. 
 There are natural causes that would keep and 
 tie us together, and there are social and do- 
 mestic relations which we could not break if 
 we would, and which we should not if we 
 could. 
 
 Sir, nobody can look over the face of this 
 country at the present moment, nobody can 
 see where its population is the most dense and 
 growing, without being ready to admit, and 
 compelled to admit, that erelong the strength 
 of America will be in the Valley of the Missis- 
 sippi. Well, now, sir, I beg to inquire what 
 the wildest enthusiast has to say on the possi- 
 
198 DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 bility of cutting that river in two, and leaving 
 free States at its source and on its branches, 
 and slave States down near its mouth, each 
 forming a separate government ? Pray, sir, 
 let me say to the people of this country, that 
 these things are worthy of their pondering and 
 of their consideration. Here, sir, are five mil- 
 lions of freemen in the free States north of the 
 river Ohio. Can anybody suppose that this 
 population can be severed, by a line that di* 
 vides them from the territory of a foreign and 
 alien government, down somewhere, the Lord 
 knows where, upon the lower banks of the Mis- 
 sissippi ? What would become of Missouri ? 
 Will she join the arrondissement of the slave 
 States ? Shall the man from the Yellowstone 
 and the Platte be connected, in the new repub- 
 lic, with the man who lives on the southern 
 extremity of the Cape of Florida ? Sir, I am 
 ashamed to pursue this line of remark. I dis- 
 like it, I have an utter disgust for it. I would 
 rather hear of natural blasts and mildews, war, 
 pestilence, and famine, than to hear gentlemen 
 talk of secession. To break up this great Gov- 
 ernment ! to dismember this glorious country ! 
 to astonish Europe with an act of folly such as 
 Europe for two centuries has never beheld in 
 
THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION. 199 
 
 any government or any people ! No, sir ! no, 
 sir! There will be no secession! Gentlemen 
 are not serious when they talk of secession. 
 
 Sir, I hear there is to be a convention held 
 at Nashville. I am bound to believe that if 
 worthy gentlemen meet at Nashville in conven- 
 tion, their object will be to adopt conciliatory 
 counsels ; to advise the South to forbearance 
 and moderation, and to advise the North to 
 forbearance and moderation ; and to inculcate 
 principles of brotherly love and affection, and 
 attachment to the Constitution of the country 
 as it now is. I believe, if the convention meet 
 at all, it will be for this purpose ; for certainly, 
 if they meet for any purpose hostile to the 
 Union, they have been singularly inappropri- 
 ate in their selection of a place. I remem- 
 ber, sir, that, when the treaty of Amiens was 
 concluded between France and England, a 
 sturdy Englishman and a distinguished orator, 
 who regarded the conditions of the peace as 
 ignominious to England, said in the House of 
 Commons, that if King William could know 
 the terms of that treaty, he would turn in his 
 coffin ! Let me commend this saying to Mr. 
 Windham, in all its emphasis and in all its 
 force, to any persons who shall meet at Nash- 
 
200 DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 ville for the purpose of concerting measures 
 for the overthrow of this Union over the bones 
 of Andrew Jackson. * * * " 
 
 And now, Mr. President, instead of speaking 
 of the possibility or utility of secession, instead 
 of dwelling in those caverns of darkness, in- 
 stead of groping with those ideas so full of all 
 that is horrid and horrible, let us come out 
 into the light of the day ; let us enjoy the 
 fresh air of Liberty and Union ; let us cherish 
 those hopes which belong to us ; let us devote 
 ourselves to those great objects that are fit for 
 our consideration and our action ; let us raise 
 our conceptions to the magnitude and the im- 
 portance of the duties that devolve upon us ; let 
 our comprehension be as broad as the country 
 for which we act, our aspirations as high as its 
 certain destiny ; let us not be pigmies in a case 
 that calls for men. Never did there devolve 
 on any generation of men higher trusts than 
 now devolve upon us, for the preservation of 
 this Constitution and the harmony and peace of 
 all who are destined to live under it. Let us 
 make our generation one of the strongest and 
 brightest links in that golden chain which is 
 destined, I fondly believe, to grapple the people 
 of all the States to this Constitution for ages to 
 
THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION. 2OI 
 
 come. We have a great, popular, Constitu- 
 tional Government, guarded by law and by 
 judicature, and defended by the affections of the 
 whole people. No monarchical throne presses 
 these States together, no iron chain of military 
 power encircles them ; they live and stand un- 
 der a Government popular in its form, represen- 
 tative in its character, founded upon principles 
 of equality, and so constructed, we hope, as 
 to last forever. In all its history it has been 
 beneficent ; it has trodden down no man's lib- 
 erty ; it has crushed no State. Its daily respira- 
 tion is liberty and patriotism ; its yet youthful 
 veins are full of enterprise, courage, and honor- 
 able love of glory and renown. Large before, 
 the country has now, by recent events, become 
 vastly larger. This Republic now extends, with 
 a vast breadth across the whole continent. The 
 two great seas of the world wash the one and 
 the other shore. We realize, on a mighty 
 scale, the beautiful description of the ornamen- 
 tal border of the buckler of Achilles : 
 
 " Now, the broad shield complete, the artist crowned 
 With his last hand, and poured the ocean round ; 
 In living silver seemed the waves to roll, 
 And beat the buckler's verge, and bound the whole." 3fl 
 
HENRY CLAY,* 
 
 OF KENTUCKY.* 
 (BORN 1777, DIED 1852.) 
 
 ON THE COMPROMISE OF 1850 ; UNITED STATES SEN- 
 ATE, JULY 22, 1850.* 
 
 MR. PRESIDENT : 
 
 In the progress of this debate it has been 
 again and again argued that perfect tranquillity 
 reigns throughout the country, and that there 
 is no disturbance threatening its peace, en- 
 dangering its safety, but that which was pro- 
 duced by busy, restless politicians. It has been 
 maintained that the surface of the public mind 
 is perfectly smooth and undisturbed by a single 
 billow. I most heartily wish I could concur in 
 this picture of general tranquillity that has 
 been drawn upon both sides of the Senate. I 
 am no alarmist ; nor, I thank God, at the ad- 
 vanced age at which His providence has been 
 pleased to allow me to reach, am I very easily 
 alarmed by any human event; but I totally 
 
 * For notes on Clay, see Appendix, p. 407. 
 20? 
 
THE COMPROMISE OF l8$O. 2OJ 
 
 misread the signs of the times, if there be that 
 state of profound peace and quiet, that absence 
 of all just cause of apprehension of future dan- 
 ger to this confederacy, which appears to be en- 
 tertained by some other senators. Mr. Presi- 
 dent, all the tendencies of the times, I lament 
 to say, are toward disquietude, if not more fatal 
 consequences. When before, in the midst of 
 profound peace with all the nations of the 
 earth, have we seen a convention, 3 representing 
 a considerable portion of one great part of the 
 Republic, meet to deliberate about measures of 
 future safety in connection with great interests 
 of that quarter of the country ? When before 
 have we seen, not one, but more some half a 
 dozen legislative bodies solemnly resolving that 
 if any one of these measures the admission 
 of California, the adoption of the Wilmot 
 proviso, the abolition of slavery in the District 
 of Columbia should be adopted by Congress, 
 measures of an extreme character, for the safety 
 of the great interests to which I refer, in a par- 
 ticular section of the country, would be resorted 
 to ? For years, this subject of the abolition of 
 slavery, even within this District of Columbia, 
 small as is the number of slaves here, has been 
 a source of constant irritation and disquiet. So 
 
204 HENR Y CLA Y. 
 
 of the subject of the recovery of fugitive slaves 
 who have escaped from their lawful owners : 
 not a mere border contest, as has been sup- 
 posed although there, undoubtedly, it has 
 given rise to more irritation than in other por- 
 tions of the Union but everywhere through- 
 out the slave-holding country it has been felt as 
 a great evil, a great wrong which required the 
 intervention of congressional power. But these 
 two subjects, unpleasant as has been the agita- 
 tion to which they have given rise, are nothing 
 in comparison to those which have sprung out 
 of the acquisitions recently made from the Re- 
 public of Mexico. These are not only great and 
 leading causes of just apprehension as respects 
 the future, but all the minor circumstances of 
 the day intimate danger ahead, whatever may 
 be its final issue and consequence. * * * * 
 
 Mr. President, I will not dwell upon other 
 concomitant causes, all having the same ten- 
 dency, and all well calculated to awaken, to 
 arouse us if, as I hope the fact is, we are all of 
 us sincerely desirous of preserving this Union 
 to rouse us to dangers which really exist, with- 
 out underrating them upon the one hand, or 
 magnifying them upon the other. * * * s 
 
 It has been objected against this measure 
 
THE COMPROMISE OF l8$O. 2O$ 
 
 that it is a compromise. It has been said that 
 it is a compromise of principle, or of a principle. 
 Mr. President, what is a compromise? It is a 
 work of mutual concession an agreement in 
 which there are reciprocal stipulations a work 
 in which, for the sake of peace and concord, 
 one party abates his extreme demands in con- 
 sideration of an abatement of extreme demands 
 by the other party : it is a measure of mutual 
 concession a measure of mutual sacrifice. Un- 
 doubtedly, Mr. President, in all such measures 
 of compromise, one party would be very glad 
 to get what he wants, and reject what he does 
 not desire, but which the other party wants. 
 But when he comes to reflect that, from the 
 nature of the Government and its operations, 
 and from those with whom he is dealing, it 
 is necessary upon his part, in order to secure 
 what he wants, to grant something to the other 
 side, he should be reconciled to the concession 
 which he has made, in consequence of the con- 
 cession which he is to receive, if there is no 
 great principle involved, such as a violation of 
 the Constitution of the United States. I ad- 
 mit that such a compromise as that ought 
 never to be sanctioned or adopted. But I now 
 call upon any senator in his place to point out 
 
206 HENRY CLAY. 
 
 from the beginning to the end, from California 
 to New Mexico, a solitary provision in this bill 
 which is violative of the Constitution of the 
 United States. 
 
 Sir, adjustments in the shape of compromise 
 may be made without producing any such con- 
 sequences as have been apprehended. There 
 may be a mutual forbearance. You forbear on 
 your side to insist upon the application of the 
 restriction denominated the Wilmot proviso. 
 Is there any violation of principle there ? The 
 most that can be said, even assuming the power 
 to pass the Wilmot proviso, which is denied, is 
 that there is a forbearance to exercise, not a 
 violation of, the power to pass the proviso. So, 
 upon the other hand, if there was a power in 
 the Constitution of the United States authoriz- 
 ing the establishment of slavery in any of the 
 Territories a power, however, which is con- 
 troverted by a large portion of this Senate if 
 there was a power under the Constitution to 
 establish slavery, the forbearance to exercise 
 that power is no violation of the Constitution, 
 any more than the Constitution is violated by a 
 forbearance to exercise numerous powers, that 
 might be specified, that are granted in the Con- 
 stitution, and that remain dormant until they 
 
THE COMPROMISE OF l8$O. 2O/ 
 
 come to be exercised by the proper legislative 
 authorities. It is said that the bill presents the 
 state of coercion that members are coerced, in 
 order to get what they want, to vote for that 
 which they disapprove. Why, sir, what coer- 
 cion is there? * * *" Can it be said upon 
 the part of our Northern friends, because they 
 have not got the Wilmot proviso incorporated 
 in the territorial part of the bill, that they are 
 coerced wanting California, as they do, so 
 much to vote for the bill, if they do vote for 
 it ? Sir, they might have imitated the noble 
 example of my friend (Senator Cooper, of Penn- 
 sylvania), from that State upon whose devotion 
 to this Union I place one of my greatest re- 
 liances for its preservation. What was the 
 course of my friend upon this subject of the 
 Wilmot proviso ? He voted for it ; and he 
 could go back to his constituents and say, as 
 all of you could go back and say to your con- 
 stituents, if you chose to do so " We wanted 
 the Wilmot proviso in the bill ; we tried to get 
 it in ; but the majority of the Senate was 
 against it." The question then came up 
 whether we should lose California, which has 
 got an interdiction in her constitution, which, 
 in point of value and duration, is worth a thou- 
 
208 HENRY CLAY. 
 
 sand Wilmot provisos ; we were induced, as 
 my honorable friend would say, to take the bill 
 and the whole of it together, although we were 
 disappointed in our votes with respect to the 
 Wilmot proviso to take it, whatever omissions 
 may have been made, on account of the supe- 
 rior amount of good it contains. * * * 7 
 
 Not the reception of the treaty of peace 
 negotiated at Ghent, nor any other event which 
 has occurred during my progress in public life, 
 ever gave such unbounded and universal satis- 
 faction as the settlement of the Missouri com- 
 promise. We may argue from like causes like 
 effects. Then, indeed, there was great excite- 
 ment. Then, indeed, all the legislatures of the 
 North called out for the exclusion of Missouri, 
 and all the legislatures of the South called out 
 for her admission as a State. Then, as now, 
 the country was agitated like the ocean in the 
 midst of a turbulent storm. But now, more 
 than then, has this agitation been increased. 
 Now, more than then, are the dangers which 
 exist, if the controversy remains unsettled, 
 more aggravated and more to be dreaded. The 
 idea of disunion was then scarcely a low whis- 
 per. Now, it has become a familar language in 
 certain portions of the country. The public 
 
THE COMPROMISE OF 1850. 209 
 
 mind and the public heart are becoming famil- 
 iarized with that most dangerous and fatal of 
 all events the disunion of the States. People 
 begin to contend that this is not so bad a thing 
 as they had supposed. Like the progress in all 
 human affairs, as we approach danger it dis- 
 appears, it diminishes in our conception, and 
 we no longer regard it with that awful appre- 
 hension of consequences that we did before we 
 came into contact with it. Everywhere now 
 there is a state of things, a degree of alarm and 
 apprehension, and determination to fight, as 
 they regard it, against the aggressions of the 
 North. That did not so demonstrate itself at 
 the period of the Missouri compromise. It was 
 followed, in consequence of the adoption of the 
 measure which settled the difficulty of Missouri, 
 by peace, harmony, and tranquillity. So, now, 
 I infer, from the greater amount of agitation, 
 from the greater amount of danger, that, if you 
 adopt the measures under consideration, they, 
 too, will be followed by the same amount of 
 contentment, satisfaction, peace, and tranquil- 
 lity, which ensued after the Missouri com- 
 promise. * * * 8 
 
 The responsibility of this great measure 
 passes from the hands of the committee, and 
 
 VOL. II. 14. 
 
210 HENRY CLAY. 
 
 from my hands. They know, and I know, that 
 it is an awful and tremendous responsibility. 
 I hope that you will meet it with a just con- 
 ception and a true appreciation of its magni- 
 tude, and the magnitude of the consequences 
 that may ensue from your decision one way or 
 the other. The alternatives, I fear, which the 
 measure presents, are concord and increased dis- 
 cord ; a servile civil war, originating in its causes 
 on the lower Rio Grande, and terminating pos- 
 sibly in its consequences on the upper Rio 
 Grande in the Santa F country, or the restora- 
 tion of harmony and fraternal kindness. I 
 believe from the bottom of my soul, that the 
 measure is the reunion of this Union. I believe 
 it is the dove of peace, which, taking its aerial 
 flight from the dome of the Capitol, carries the 
 glad tidings of assured peace and restored har- 
 mony to all the remotest extremities of this dis- 
 tracted land. I believe that it will be attended 
 with all these beneficent effects. And now let 
 us discard all resentment, all passions, all petty 
 jealousies, all personal desires, all love of place, 
 all hankerings after the gilded crumbs which fall 
 from the table of power. Let us forget popular 
 fears, from whatever quarter they may spring. 
 Let us go to the limpid fountain of unadulter- 
 
THE COMPROMISE OF 1 850. 211 
 
 ated patriotism, and, performing a solemn lus- 
 tration, return divested of all selfish, sinister, 
 and sordid impurities, and think alone of our 
 God, our country, our consciences, and our glo- 
 rious Union that Union without which we 
 shall be torn into hostile fragments, and sooner 
 or later become the victims of military des- 
 potism, or foreign domination.' 
 
 Mr. President, what is an individual man ? 
 An atom, almost invisible without a magnifying 
 glass a mere speck upon the surface of the im- 
 mense universe ; not a second in time, compared 
 to immeasurable, never-beginning, and never- 
 ending eternity ; a drop of water in the great 
 deep, which evaporates and is borne off by the 
 winds ; a grain of sand, which is soon gathered 
 to the dust from which it sprung. Shall a being 
 so small, so petty, so fleeting, so evanescent,, 
 oppose itself to the onward march of a great 
 nation, which is to subsist for ages and ages to- 
 come ; oppose itself to that long line of poster- 
 ity which, issuing from our loins, will endure 
 during the existence of the world ? Forbid it, 
 God. Let us look to our country and our 
 cause, elevate ourselves to the dignity of pure 
 and disinterested patriots, and save our country 
 from all impending dangers. What if, in the 
 
212 , HENRY CLAY. 
 
 march of this nation to greatness and power, 
 we should be buried beneath the wheels that 
 propel it onward ! What are we what is any 
 man worth who is not ready and willing to 
 sacrifice himself for the benefit of his country 
 when it is necessary ? * * * 10 
 
 If this Union shall become separated, new 
 unions, new confederacies will arise. And with 
 respect to this, if there be any I hope there 
 is no one in the Senate before whose imagina- 
 tion is flitting the idea of a great Southern Con- 
 federacy to take possession of the Balize and 
 the mouth of the Mississippi, I say in my place 
 never ! never ! NEVER ! will we who occupy the 
 broad waters of the Mississippi and its upper 
 tributaries consent that any foreign flag shall 
 float at the Balize or upon the turrets of the 
 Crescent City NEVER ! NEVER ! I call upon all 
 the South. Sir, we have had hard words, 
 bitter words, bitter thoughts, unpleasant feel- 
 ings toward each other in the progress of this 
 great measure. Let us forget them. Let us 
 sacrifice these feelings. Let us go to the altar 
 of our country and swear, as the oath was taken 
 of old, that we will stand by her ; that we will 
 support her; that we will uphold her Constitu- 
 tion ; that we will preserve her Union ; and 
 
THE COMPROMISE OF 1 850. 213 
 
 that we will pass this great, comprehensive, 
 and healing system of measures, which will 
 hush all the jarring elements, and bring peace 
 and tranquillity to our homes. 
 
 Let me, Mr. President, in conclusion, say 
 that the most disastrous consequences would 
 occur, in my opinion, were we to go home, 
 doing nothing to satisfy and tranquillize the 
 country upon these great questions. What will 
 be the judgment of mankind, what the judg- 
 ment of that portion of mankind who are look- 
 ing upon the progress of this scheme of self- 
 government as being that which holds the 
 highest hopes and expectations of ameliorating 
 the condition of mankind what will their 
 judgment be? Will not all the monarchs of 
 the Old World pronounce our glorious Republic 
 a disgraceful failure ? What will be the judg- 
 ment of our constituents, when we return to 
 them and they ask us : " How have you left 
 your country? Is all quiet all happy? Are 
 all the seeds of distraction or division crushed 
 and dissipated ? " And, sir, when you come 
 into the bosom of your family, when you come 
 to converse with the partner of your fortunes, 
 of your happiness, and of your sorrows, and 
 when in the midst of the common offspring of 
 
214 HENRY CLAY. 
 
 both of you, she asks you : " Is there any dan- 
 ger of civil war? Is there any danger of the 
 torch being applied to any portion of the 
 country? Have you settled the questions 
 which you have been so long discussing and 
 deliberating upon at Washington? Is all peace 
 and all quiet?" what response, Mr. President, 
 can you make to that wife of your choice and 
 those children with whom you have been blessed 
 by God ? Will you go home and leave all in 
 disorder and confusion all unsettled all open? 
 The contentions and agitations of the past will 
 be increased and augmented by the agitations 
 resulting from our neglect to decide them. Sir, 
 we shall stand condemned by all human judg- 
 ment below, and of that above it is not for me 
 to speak. We shall stand condemned in our 
 own consciences, by our own constituents, and 
 by our own country. The measure may be de- 
 feated. I have been aware that its passage for 
 many days was not absolutely certain. From 
 the first to the last, I hoped and believed it 
 would pass, because from the first to the last I 
 believed it was founded on the principles of 
 just and righteous concession of mutual concilia- 
 tion. I believe that it deals unjustly by no 
 part of the Republic ; that it saves their honor, 
 
THE COMPROMISE OF 1 850. 21$ 
 
 and, as far as it is dependent upon Congress, 
 saves the interests of all quarters of the country. 
 But, sir, I have known that the decision of its 
 fate depended upon four or five votes in the 
 Senate of the United States, whose ultimate 
 judgment we could not count upon the one side 
 or the other with absolute certainty. Its fate 
 is now committed to the Senate, and to those 
 five or six votes to which I have referred. It 
 may be defeated. It is possible that, for the 
 chastisement of our sins and transgressions, the 
 rod of Providence may be still applied to us, 
 may be still suspended over us. But, if de- 
 feated, it will be a triumph of ultraism and im- 
 practicability a triumph of a most extraordi- 
 nary conjunction of extremes ; a victory won by 
 abolitionism ; a victory achieved by freesoilism ; 
 a victory of discord and agitation over peace 
 and tranquillity ; and I pray to Almighty God 
 that it may not, in consequence of the inauspi- 
 cious result, lead to the most unhappy and dis- 
 astrous consequences to our beloved country. 
 
 MR. BARNWELL : It is not my intention to 
 reply to the argument of the Senator from Ken- 
 tucky, but there were expressions used by him 
 not a little disrespectful to a friend whom I hold 
 very dear. * * * It is true that his politi- 
 
2i6 HENRY CLAY. 
 
 cal opinions differ very widely from those of 
 the Senator from Kentucky. It may be true, 
 that he, with many great statesmen, may believe 
 that the Wilmot proviso is a grievance to be re- 
 sisted " to the utmost extremity " by those whose 
 rights it destroys and whose honor it degrades. 
 It is true that he may believe * * * that 
 the admission of California will be the passing 
 of the Wilmot proviso, when we here in Con- 
 gress give vitality to an act otherwise totally 
 dead, and by our legislation exclude slavehold- 
 ers from that whole broad territory on the 
 Pacific ; and, entertaining this opinion, he may 
 have declared that the contingency will then 
 have occurred which will, in the judgment of 
 most of the slave-holding States, as expressed by 
 their resolutions, justify resistance as to an in- 
 tolerable aggression. If he does entertain and 
 has expressed such sentiments, he is not to be 
 held up as peculiarly a disunionist. Allow me 
 to say, in reference to this matter, I regret that 
 you have brought it about, but it is true that 
 this epithet " disunionist " is likely soon to 
 have very little terror in it in the South. Words 
 do not make things. " Rebel " was designed as 
 a very odious term when applied by those who 
 would have trampled on the rights of our an- 
 
THE COMPROMISE OF 1 850. 2 1/ 
 
 cestors, but I believe that the expression became 
 not an ungrateful one to the ears of those who 
 resisted them. It was not the lowest term of 
 abuse to call those who were conscious that 
 they were struggling against oppression ; and 
 let me assure gentlemen that the term disun- 
 ionist is rapidly assuming at the South the 
 meaning which rebel took when it was baptized 
 in the blood of Warren at Bunker Hill, and 
 illustrated by the gallantry of Jasper at Fort 
 Moultrie. * * * 
 
 MR. CLAY: Mr. President, I said nothing 
 with respect to the character of Mr. Rhett, for 
 I might as well name him. I know him person- 
 ally, and have some respect for him. But, if 
 he pronounced the sentiment attributed to him 
 of raising the standard of disunion and of re- 
 sistance to the common government, whatever 
 he has been, if he follows up that declaration 
 by corresponding overt acts, he will be a traitor, 
 and I hope he will meet the fate of a traitor." 
 
 THE PRESIDENT: The Chair will be under 
 the necessity of ordering the gallery to be 
 cleared if there is again the slightest interrup- 
 tion. He has once already given warning that 
 he is under the necessity of keeping order. The 
 Senate chamber is not a theatre. 
 
2l8 HENRY CLAY. 
 
 MR. CLAY : Mr. President, I have heard with 
 pain and regret a confirmation of the remark I 
 made, that the sentiment of disunion is becom- 
 ing familiar. I hope it is confined to South 
 Carolina. I do not regard as my duty what the 
 honorable Senator seems to regard as his. If 
 Kentucky to-morrow unfurls the banner of re- 
 sistance unjustly, I never will fight under that 
 banner. I owe a paramount allegiance to the 
 whole Union a subordinate one to my own 
 State. When my State is right when it has a 
 cause for resistance when tyranny, and wrong, 
 and oppression insufferable arise, I will then 
 share her fortunes ; but if she summons me to 
 the battle-field, or to support her in any cause 
 which is unjust, against the Union, never, never 
 will I engage with her in such cause. 12 
 
WENDELL PHILLIPS,* 
 
 OF MASSACHUSETTS.- 
 (BORN 1811, DIED 1884.) 
 
 ON THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE ABOLITION MOVEMENT, 
 
 BEFORE THE MASSACHUSETTS ANTI-SLAVERY 
 
 SOCIETY, AT BOSTON, JANUARY 27, 1853.' 
 
 Mr. CHAIRMAN : 
 
 I have to present, from the business commit- 
 tee, the following resolution : 
 
 Resolved; That the object of this society is 
 now, as it has always been, to convince our 
 countrymen, by arguments addressed to their 
 hearts and consciences, that slave-holding is a 
 heinous crime, and that the duty, safety, and 
 interest of all concerned demand its immediate 
 abolition without expatriation. 
 
 I wish, Mr. Chairman, to notice some objec- 
 tions that have been made to our course ever 
 since Mr. Garrison began his career, and which 
 have been lately urged again, with considerable 
 force and emphasis, in the columns of the Lon- 
 
 * For notes on Phillips, see Appendix, p. 366. 
 
220 WENDELL PHILLIPS. 
 
 don Leader, the able organ of a very respectable 
 and influential class in England. * * *' The 
 charges to which I refer are these: That, in 
 dealing with slave-holders and their apologists, 
 we indulge in fierce denunciations, instead of 
 appealing to their reason and common sense 
 by plain statements and fair argument ; that we 
 might have won the sympathies and support of 
 the nation, if we would have submitted to 
 argue this question with a manly patience; but, 
 instead of this, we have outraged the feelings 
 of the community by attacks, unjust and un- 
 necessarily severe, on its most valued institu- 
 tions, and gratified our spleen by indiscriminate 
 abuse of leading men, who were often honest 
 in their intentions, however mistaken in their 
 views ; that we have utterly neglected the 
 ample means that lay around us to convert the 
 nation, submitted to no discipline, formed no 
 plan, been guided by no foresight, but hurried 
 on in childish, reckless, blind, and hot-headed 
 zeal, bigots in the narrowness of our views, 
 and fanatics in our blind fury of invective and 
 malignant judgment of other men's motives. 
 
 There are some who come upon our platform, 
 and give us the aid of names and reputations 
 less burdened than ours with popular odium, 
 
THE ABOLITION MOVEMENT. 221 
 
 who are perpetually urging us to exercise 
 charity in our judgments of those about us, and 
 to consent to argue these questions. These 
 men are ever parading their wish to draw a line 
 between themselves and us, because they must 
 be permitted \.Q wait, to trust more to reason 
 than feeling, to indulge a generous charity, 
 to rely on the sure influence of simple truth, 
 uttered in love, etc., etc. I reject with scorn all 
 these implications that our judgments are un- 
 charitable, that we are lacking in patience, 
 that we have any other dependence than on the 
 simple truth, spoken with Christian frankness, 
 yet with Christian love. These lectures, to which 
 you, sir, and all of us, have so often listened, 
 would be impertinent, if they were not rather 
 ridiculous for the gross ignorance they betray of 
 the community of the cause, and of the whole 
 course of its friends. 
 
 The article in the Leader to which I refer is 
 signed " ION," and may be found in the Libera- 
 tor of December 17, 1852. * * * 4 "Ion" 
 quotes Mr Garrison's original declaration in the 
 Liberator : " I am aware that many object to 
 the severity of my language ; but is there not 
 cause for severity ? I will be as harsh as truth 
 and as uncompromising as justice. I am in 
 
222 WENDELL PHILLIPS. 
 
 earnest, I will not equivocate, I will not ex- 
 cuse, I will not retreat a single inch, AND I 
 WILL BE HEARD. It is pretended that I am re- 
 tarding the cause of emancipation by the 
 coarseness of my invective and the precipitancy 
 of my measures. The charge is not true. On 
 this question, my influence, humble as it is, 
 is felt at this moment to a considerable extent, 
 and shall be felt in coming years, not per- 
 niciously, but beneficially ; not as a curse, but 
 as a blessing; and posterity will bear testimony 
 that I was right. I desire to thank God that 
 He enables me to disregard ' the fear of man 
 which bringeth a snare,' and to speak His truth 
 in its simplicity and power." * * ** 
 
 " Ion's " charges are the old ones, that we Ab- 
 olitionists are hurting our own cause ; that, in- 
 stead of waiting for the community to come up 
 to our views, and endeavoring to remove preju- 
 dice and enlighten ignorance by patient ex- 
 planation and fair argument, we fall at once, 
 like children, to abusing every thing and every- 
 body; that we imagine zeal will supply the 
 place of common sense ; that we have never 
 shown any sagacity in adapting our means to 
 our ends ; have never studied the national 
 character, or attempted to make use of the 
 
THE ABOLITION MOVEMENT. 22$ 
 
 materials which lay all about us to influence 
 public opinion, but by blind, childish, obstinate 
 fury and indiscriminate denunciation, have be- 
 come " honestly impotent, and conscientious 
 hinderances." 
 
 I claim, before you who know the true state 
 of the case, I claim for the antislavery move- 
 ment with which this society is identified, that, 
 looking back over its whole course, and con- 
 sidering the men connected with it in the mass, 
 it has been marked by sound judgment, un- 
 erring foresight, the most sagacious adaptation 
 of means to ends, the strictest self-discipline, 
 the most thorough research, and an amount of 
 patient and manly argument addressed to the 
 conscience and intellect of the nation, such as 
 no other cause of the kind, in England or this 
 country, has ever offered. I claim, also, that 
 its course has been marked by a cheerful sur- 
 render of all individual claims to merit or 
 leadership, the most cordial welcoming of the 
 slightest effort, of every honest attempt, to 
 lighten or to break the chain of the slave. I 
 need not waste time by repeating the superflu- 
 ous confession that we are men, and therefore 
 do not claim to be perfect. Neither would I 
 be understood as denying that we use denuncia- 
 
224 WENDELL PHILLIPS. 
 
 tion, and ridicule, and every other weapon that 
 the human mind knows. We must plead 
 guilty, if there be guilt in not knowing how 
 to separate the sin from the sinner. With all 
 the fondness for abstractions attributed to us, 
 we are not yet capable of that. We are fight- 
 ing a momentous battle at desperate odds, 
 one against a thousand. Every weapon that 
 ability or ignorance, wit, wealth, prejudice, or 
 fashion can command, is pointed against us. 
 The guns are shotted to their lips. The ar- 
 rows are poisoned. Fighting against such an 
 array, we cannot afford to confine ourselves to 
 any one weapon. The cause is not ours, so that 
 we might, rightfully, postpone or put in peril 
 the victory by moderating our demands, stifling 
 our convictions, or filing down our rebukes, to 
 gratify any sickly taste of our own, or to spare 
 the delicate nerves of our neighbor. Our clients 
 are three millions of Christian slaves, standing 
 dumb suppliants at the threshold of the Chris- 
 tian world. They have no voice but ours to 
 utter their complaints, or to demand justice. 
 The press, the pulpit, the wealth, the literature, 
 the prejudices, the political arrangements, the 
 present self-interest of the country, are all 
 against us. God has given us no weapon but 
 
THE ABOLITION MOVEMENT. 22$ 
 
 the truth, faithfully uttered, and addressed, 
 with the old prophets' directness, to the con- 
 science of the individual sinner. The elements 
 which control public opinion and mould the 
 masses are against us. We can but pick off 
 here and there a man from the triumphant ma- 
 jority. We have facts for those who think, 
 arguments for those who reason ; but he who 
 cannot be reasoned out of his prejudices must 
 be laughed out of them ; he who cannot be 
 argued out of his selfishness must be shamed 
 out of it by the mirror of his hateful self held 
 up relentlessly before his eyes. We live in a 
 land where every man makes broad his phylac- 
 tery, inscribing thereon, " All men are created 
 equal," " God hath made of one blood all na- 
 tions of men.' r It seems to us that in such 
 a land there must be, on this question of 
 slavery, sluggards to be awakened, as well as 
 doubters to be convinced. Many more, we 
 verily believe, of the first than of the last. 
 There are far more dead hearts to be quick- 
 ened, than confused intellects to be cleared 
 up, more dumb dogs 6 to be made to speak, 
 than doubting consciences to be enlightened. 
 We have use, then, sometimes, for something 
 beside argument. 
 
 VOL. II. 15. 
 
226 WENDELL PHILLIPS. 
 
 What is the denunciation with which we are 
 charged ? It is endeavoring, in our faltering 
 human speech, to declare the enormity of the 
 sin of making merchandize of men, of sepa- 
 rating husband and wife, taking the infant 
 from its mother and selling the daughter to 
 prostitution, of a professedly Christian nation 
 denying, by statute, the Bible to every sixth 
 man and woman of its population, and making 
 it illegal for "two or three " to meet together, 
 except a white man be present ! What is this 
 harsh criticism of motives with which we are 
 charged ? It is simply holding the intelligent 
 and deliberate actor responsible for the char- 
 acter and consequences of his acts. Is there 
 any thing inherently wrong in such denuncia- 
 tion of such criticism ? This we may claim, 
 we have never judged a man but out of his own 
 mouth. We have seldom, if ever, held him to 
 account, except for acts of which he and his 
 own friends were proud. All that we ask the 
 world and thoughtful men to note are the prin- 
 ciples and deeds on which the American pulpit 
 and American public men plume themselves. 
 We always allow our opponents to paint their 
 own pictures. Our humble duty is to stand by 
 and assure the spectators that what they would 
 
THE ABOLITION MOVEMENT. 22/ 
 
 take for a knave or a hypocrite is really, in 
 American estimation, a Doctor of Divinity or a 
 Secretary of State. 
 
 The South is one great brothel, where half a 
 million of women are flogged to prostitution, 
 or, worse still, are degraded to believe it honor- 
 able. The public squares of half our great 
 cities echo to the wail of families torn asunder 
 at the auction-block ; no one of our fair rivers 
 that has not closed over the negro seeking in 
 death a refuge from a life too wretched to bear ; 
 thousands of fugitives skulk along our high- 
 ways, afraid to tell their names, and trembling 
 at the sight of a human being ; free men are 
 kidnapped in our streets, to be plunged into 
 that hell of slavery ; and now and then one, as 
 if by miracle, after long years returns to make 
 men aghast with his tale. The press says, " It 
 is all right'*; and the pulpit cries, "Amen/" 
 They print the Bible in every tongue in which 
 man utters his prayers ; and they get the 
 money to do so by agreeing never to give the 
 book, in the language our mothers taught us, 
 to any negro, free or bond, south of Mason 
 and Dixon's line. The press says, " It is all 
 right " ; and the pulpit cries, " Amen." The 
 slave lifts up his imploring eyes, and sees in 
 
228 WENDELL PHILLIPS. 
 
 every face but ours the face of an enemy. 
 Prove to me now that harsh rebuke, indignant 
 denunciation, scathing sarcasm, and pitiless 
 ridicule are wholly and always unjustifiable ; 
 else we dare not, in so desperate a case, throw 
 away any weapon which ever broke up the 
 crust of an ignorant prejudice, roused a slum- 
 bering conscience, shamed a proud sinner, or 
 changed in any way the conduct of a human 
 being. Our aim is to alter public opinion. Did 
 we live in a market, our talk should be of dol- 
 lars and cents, and we would seek to prove only 
 that slavery was an unprofitable investment. 
 Were the nation one great, pure church, we 
 would sit down and reason of " righteousness, 
 temperance, and judgment to come." Had slav- 
 ery fortified itself in a college, we would load 
 our cannons with cold facts, and wing our ar- 
 rows with arguments. But we happen to live 
 in the world, the world made up of thought 
 and impulse, of self-conceit and self-interest, of 
 weak men and wicked. To conquer, we must 
 reach all. Our object is not to make every man 
 a Christian or a philosopher, but to induce every 
 one to aid in the abolition of slavery. We ex- 
 pect to accomplish our object long before the 
 nation is made over into saints or elevated into 
 
THE ABOLITION MOVEMENT. 229 
 
 philosophers. To change public opinion, we 
 use the very tools by which it was formed. 
 That is, all such as an honest man may touch. 
 
 All this I am not only ready to allow, but I 
 should be ashamed to think of the slave, or to 
 look into the face of my fellow-man, if it were 
 otherwise. It is the only thing which justifies 
 us to our own consciences, and makes us able 
 to say we have done, or at least tried to do, our 
 duty. 
 
 So far, however you distrust my philosophy, 
 you will not doubt my statements. That we 
 have denounced and rebuked with unsparing 
 fidelity will not be denied. Have we not also 
 addressed ourselves to that other duty, of argu- 
 ing our question thoroughly ? of using due 
 discretion and fair sagacity in endeavoring to 
 promote our cause? Yes, we have. Every 
 statement we have made has been doubted. 
 Every principle we have laid down has been 
 denied by overwhelming majorities against us. 
 No one step has ever been gained but by the 
 most laborious research and the most exhaust- 
 ing argument. And no question has ever, since 
 Revolutionary days, been so thoroughly inves- 
 tigated or argued here, as that of slavery. Of 
 that research and that argument, of the whole 
 
230 WENDELL PHILLIPS. 
 
 of it, the old-fashioned, fanatical, crazy Garri- 
 sonian antislavery movement has been the 
 author. From this band of men has proceeded 
 every important argument or idea which has 
 been broached on the antislavery question from 
 1830 to the present time. I am well aware of 
 the extent of the claim I make. I recognize, 
 as fully as any one can, the ability of the new 
 laborers, the eloquence and genius with which 
 they have recommended this cause to the na- 
 tion, and flashed conviction home on the con- 
 science of the community. I do not mean, 
 either, to assert that they have in every instance 
 borrowed from our treasury their facts and argu- 
 ments. Left to themselves, they would proba- 
 bly have looked up the one and originated the 
 other. As a matter of fact, however, they have 
 generally made use of the materials collected to 
 their hands. * * * 7 When once brought 
 fully into the struggle, they have found it 
 necessary to adopt the same means, to rely on 
 the same arguments, to hold up the same men 
 and the same measures to public reprobation, 
 with the same bold rebuke and unsparing invec- 
 tive that we have used. All their conciliatory 
 bearing, their painstaking moderation, their con- 
 stant and anxious endeavor to draw a broad line 
 
THE ABOLITION MOVEMENT. 23 
 
 between their camp and ours, have been thrown 
 away. Just so far as they have been effective 
 laborers, they have found, as we have, their 
 hands against every man, and every man's hand 
 against them. The most experienced of them 
 are ready to acknowledge that our plan has 
 been wise, our course efficient, and that our un- 
 popularity is no fault of ours, but flows neces- 
 sarily and unavoidably from our position. " I 
 should suspect," says old Fuller, " that his 
 preaching had no salt in it, if no galled horse 
 did wince." Our friends find, after all, that 
 men do not so much hate us as the truth we 
 utter and the light we bring. They find that 
 the community are not the honest seekers after 
 truth which they fancied, but selfish politicians 
 and sectarian bigots, who shiver, like Alexan- 
 der's butler, whenever the sun shines on them. 
 Experience has driven these new laborers back 
 to our method. We have no quarrel with them 
 would not steal one wreath of their laurels. 
 All we claim is, that, if they are to be compli- 
 mented as prudent, moderate, Christian, saga- 
 cious, statesmanlike reformers, we deserve the 
 same praise ; for they have done nothing that 
 we, in our measure, did not attempt before. 
 I claim this, that the cause, in its recent as- 
 
232 WENDELL PHILLIPS. 
 
 pect, has put on nothing but timidity. It has 
 taken to itself no new weapons of recent years ; 
 it has become more compromising, that is all ! 
 It has become neither more persuasive, more 
 earnest, more Christian, more charitable, nor 
 more effective than for the twenty years pre- 
 ceding. Mr. Hale, the head of the Free Soil 
 movement, after a career in the Senate that 
 would do honor to any man, after a six years' 
 course which entitles him to the respect and 
 confidence of the antislavery public, can put 
 his name, within the last month, to an appeal 
 from the city of Washington, signed by a 
 Houston and a Cass, for a monument to be 
 raised to Henry Clay ! If that be the test of 
 charity and courtesy, we cannot give it to the 
 world. Some of the leaders of the Free Soil 
 party of Massachusetts, after exhausting the 
 whole capacity of our language to paint the 
 treachery of Daniel Webster to the cause of 
 liberty, and the evil they thought he was able 
 and seeking to do, after that, could feel it in 
 their hearts to parade themselves in the funeral 
 procession got up to do him honor ! In this 
 we allow we cannot follow them. The defer- 
 ence which every gentleman owes to the proprie- 
 ties of social life, that self-respect and regard to 
 
THE ABOLITION MOVEMENT. 233 
 
 consistency which is every man's duty, these, if 
 no deeper feelings, will ever prevent us from 
 giving such proofs of this newly invented 
 Christian courtesy. We do not play politics, 
 antislavery is no half-jest with us ; it is a terri- 
 ble earnest, with life or death, worse than life 
 or death, on the issue. It is no lawsuit, where 
 it matters not to the good feeling of opposing 
 counsel which way the verdict goes, and where 
 advocates can shake hands after the decision as 
 pleasantly as before. When we think of such a 
 man as Henry Clay, his long life, his mighty 
 influence cast always into the scale against the 
 slave, of that irresistible fascination with which 
 he moulded every one to his will ; when we re- 
 member that, his conscience acknowledging the 
 justice of our cause, and his heart open on every 
 other side to the gentlest impulses, he could 
 sacrifice so remorselessly his convictions and 
 the welfare of millions to his low ambition ; 8 
 when we think how the slave trembled at the 
 sound of his voice, and that, from a multitude 
 of breaking hearts there went up nothing but 
 gratitude to God when it pleased him to call 
 that great sinner from this world, we cannot 
 find it in our hearts, we could not shape our 
 lips to ask any man to do him honor. No 
 
234 WENDELL PHILLIPS. 
 
 amount of eloquence, no sheen of official posi- 
 tion, no loud grief of partisan friends, would 
 ever lead us to ask monuments or walk in fine 
 processions for pirates ; and the sectarian zeal 
 or selfish ambition which gives up, deliberately 
 and in full knowledge of the facts, three million 
 of human beings to hopeless ignorance, daily 
 robbery, systematic prostitution, and murder, 
 which the law is neither able nor undertakes to 
 prevent or avenge, is more monstrous, in our 
 eyes, than the love of gold which takes a score 
 of lives with merciful quickness on the high 
 seas. Haynau ' on the Danube is no more 
 hateful to us than Haynau on the Potomac. 
 Why give mobs to one and monuments to the 
 other? 
 
 If these things be necessary to courtesy, I 
 cannot claim that we are courteous. We seek 
 only to be honest men, and speak the same of 
 the dead as of the living. If the grave that 
 hides their bodies could swallow also the evil 
 they have done and the example they leave, 
 we might enjoy at least the luxury of forget- 
 ting them. But the evil that men do lives 
 after them, and example acquires tenfold au- 
 thority when it speaks from the grave. His- 
 tory, also, is to be written. How shall a feeble 
 
THE ABOLITION MOVEMENT. 235 
 
 minority, without weight or influence in the 
 country, with no jury of millions to appeal to, 
 denounced, vilified, and contemned, how 
 shall we make way against the overwhelming 
 weight of some colossal reputation, if we do 
 not turn from the idolatrous present, and ap- 
 peal to the human race ? saying to your idols 
 of to-day : " Here we are defeated ; but we will 
 write our judgment with the iron pen of a cen- 
 tury to come, and it shall never be forgotten, if 
 we can help it, that you were false in your 
 generation to the claims of the slave ! " * * * 10 
 We are weak here, out-talked, out-voted. 
 You load our names with infamy, and shout us 
 down. But our words bide their time. We 
 warn the living that we have terrible memories, 
 and their sins are never to be forgotten. We 
 will gibbet the name of every apostate so black 
 and high that his children's children shall blush 
 to bear it. Yet we bear no malice, cherish no 
 resentment. We thank God that the love of 
 fame, " that last infirmity of noble minds," is 
 shared by the ignoble. In our necessity, we 
 seize this weapon in the slave's behalf, and 
 teach caution to the living by meting out re- 
 lentless justice to the dead. * * * " These, 
 Mr. Chairman, are the reasons why we take 
 
236 WENDELL PHILLIPS. 
 
 care that " the memory of the wicked shall 
 rot." " 
 
 I have claimed that the antislavery cause 
 has, from the first, been ably and dispassion- 
 ately argued, every objection candidly exam- 
 ined, and every difficulty or doubt anywhere 
 honestly entertained treated with respect. 
 Let me glance at the literature of the cause, 
 and try not so much, in a brief hour, to prove 
 this assertion, as to point out the sources 
 from which any one may satisfy himself of its 
 truth. 
 
 I will begin with certainly the ablest and per- 
 haps the most honest statesman who has ever 
 touched the slave question. Any one who will 
 examine John Quincy Adams' speech on Texas, 
 in 1838, will see that he was only seconding the 
 full and able exposure of the Texas plot, pre- 
 pared by Benjamin Lundy, to one of whose 
 pamphlets Dr. Channing, in his " Letter to 
 Henry Clay," has confessed his obligation. 
 Every one acquainted with those years will 
 allow that the North owes its earliest knowledge 
 and first awakening on that subject to Mr. 
 Lundy, who made long journeys and devoted 
 years to the investigation. His labors have 
 this attestation, that they quickened the zeal 
 
THE ABOLITION MOVEMENT. 
 
 and strengthened the hands of such men as 
 Adams and Channing. I have been told that 
 Mr. Lundy prepared a brief for Mr. Adams, 
 and furnished him the materials for his speech 
 on Texas. 13 
 
 Look next at the right of petition. Long 
 before any member of Congress had opened his 
 mouth in its defence, the Abolition presses and 
 lecturers had examined and defended the limits 
 of this right with profound historical research 
 and eminent constitutional ability. So thor- 
 oughly had the work been done, that all classes 
 of the people had made up their minds about it 
 long before any speaker of eminence had 
 touched it in Congress. The politicians were 
 little aware of this. When Mr. Adams threw 
 himself so gallantly into the breach, it is said 
 he wrote anxiously home to know whether he 
 would be supported in Massachusetts, little 
 aware of the outburst of popular gratitude 
 which the northern breeze was even then bring- 
 ing him, deep and cordial enough to wipe away 
 the old grudge Massachusetts had borne him so 
 long. 14 Mr. Adams himself was only in favor 
 of receiving the petitions, and advised to refuse 
 their prayer, which was the abolition of slavery 
 in the District of Columbia. He doubted the 
 
238 WENDELL PHILLIPS. 
 
 power of Congress to abolish. His doubts 
 were examined by Mr. William Goodell, in two 
 letters of most acute logic, and of masterly 
 ability. If Mr. Adams still retained his doubts, 
 it is certain at least that he never expressed 
 them afterward. When Mr. Clay paraded the 
 same objections, the whole question of the 
 power of Congress over the District was treated 
 by Theodore D. Weld in the fullest manner, 
 and with the widest research, indeed, leaving 
 nothing to be added : an argument which Dr. 
 Channing characterized as " demonstration/* 
 and pronounced the essay " one of the ablest 
 pamphlets from the American press." No 
 answer was ever attempted. The best proof of 
 its ability is that no one since has presumed to 
 doubt the power. Lawyers and statesmen 
 have tacitly settled down into its full acknowl- 
 edgment. 
 
 The influence of the Colonization Society 
 on the welfare of the colored race was the first 
 question our movement encountered. To the 
 close logic, eloquent appeals, and fully sus- 
 tained charges of Mr. Garrison's letters on 
 that subject no answer was ever made. Judge 
 Jay followed with a work full and able, estab- 
 lishing every charge by the most patient in- 
 
THE ABOLITION MOVEMENT. 239 
 
 vestigation of facts. It is not too much to say 
 of these two volumes, that they left the Coloni- 
 zation Society hopeless at the North. It dares 
 never show its face before the people, and only 
 lingers in some few nooks of sectarian pride, so 
 secluded from the influence of present ideas as 
 to be almost fossil in their character. 
 
 The practical working of the slave system, 
 the slave laws, the treatment of slaves, their 
 food, the duration of their lives, their ignorance 
 and moral condition, and the influence of 
 Southern public opinion on their fate, have 
 been spread out in a detail and with a fulness 
 of evidence which no subject has ever received 
 before in this country. Witness the words 
 of Phelps, Bourne, Rankin, Grimke, the Anti- 
 slavery Record, and, above all, that encyclo- 
 paedia of facts and storehouse of arguments, 
 the Thousand Witnesses of Mr. Theodore D. 
 Weld. He also prepared that full and valuable 
 tract for the World's Convention called Slavery 
 and the Internal Slave-Trade in the United 
 States, published in London in 1841. Unique 
 in antislavery literature is Mrs. Child's Appeal, 
 one of the ablest of our weapons, and one of 
 the finest efforts of her rare genius. 
 
 The Princeton Review, I believe, first chal- 
 
240 IVENDELL PHILLIPS. 
 
 lenged the Abolitionists to an investigation of 
 the teachings of the Bible on slavery. That 
 field had been somewhat broken by our English 
 predecessors. But in England the pro-slavery 
 party had been soon shamed out of the attempt 
 to drag the Bible into their service, and hence 
 the discussion there had been short and some- 
 what superficial. The pro-slavery side of the 
 question has been eagerly sustained by theo- 
 logical reviews and doctors of divinity without 
 number, from the half-way and timid faltering 
 of Wayland up to the unblushing and melan- 
 choly recklessness of Stuart. The argument 
 on the other side has come wholly from the 
 Abolitionists; for neither Dr. Hague nor Dr. 
 Barnes can be said to have added any thing to 
 the wide research, critical acumen, and compre- 
 hensive views of Theodore D. Weld, Beriah 
 Green, J. G. Fee, and the old work of Duncan. 
 On the constitutional questions which have 
 at various times arisen, the citizenship of the 
 colored man, the soundness of the " Prigg " de- 
 cision, 16 the constitutionality of the old Fugitive 
 Slave Law, the true construction of the slave- 
 surrender clause, nothing has been added, 
 either in the way of fact or argument, to the 
 works of Jay, Weld, Alvan Stewart, E. G. Lor- 
 
THE ABOLITION MOVEMENT. 24! 
 
 ing, S. E. Sewall, Richard Hildreth, W. I. Bow- 
 ditch, the masterly essays of the Emancipator 
 at New York and the Liberator at Boston, and 
 the various addresses of the Massachusetts and 
 American Societies for the last twenty years. 
 The idea of the antislavery character of the 
 Constitution, the opiate with which Free Soil 
 quiets its conscience for voting under a pro- 
 slavery government, I heard first suggested by 
 Mr. Garrison in 1838. It was elaborately ar- 
 gued that year in all our antislavery gatherings, 
 both here and in New York, and sustained with 
 great ability by Alvan Stewart, and in part by 
 T. D. Weld. The antislavery construction of 
 the Constitution was ably argued in 1836, in 
 the Antislavery Magazine, by Rev. Samuel J. 
 May, one of the very first to seek the side of 
 Mr. Garrison, and pledge to the slave his life 
 and efforts, a pledge which thirty years of 
 devoted labors have redeemed. If it has either 
 merit or truth, they are due to no legal learning 
 recently added to our ranks, but to some of the 
 old and well-known pioneers. This claim has 
 since received the fullest investigation from 
 Mr. Lysander Spooner, who has urged it with 
 all his unrivalled ingenuity, laborious research, 
 and close logic. He writes as a lawyer, and 
 
 VOL. II. 16 
 
242 WENDELL PHILLIPS. 
 
 has no wish, I believe, to be ranked with any 
 class of anti-slavery men. 
 
 The influence of slavery on our Government 
 has received the profoundest philosophical in- 
 vestigation from the pen of Richard Hildreth, 
 in his invaluable essay on Despotism in Amer- 
 ica, a work which deserves a place by the 
 side of the ablest political disquisitions of 
 any age. 
 
 Even the vigorous mind of Rantoul, the 
 ablest man, without doubt, of the Democratic 
 party, and perhaps the ripest politician in New 
 England, added little or nothing to the store- 
 house of antislavery argument. * * * 18 His 
 speeches on our question, too short and too 
 few, are remarkable for their compact state- 
 ment, iron logic, bold denunciation, and the 
 wonderful light thrown back upon our history. 
 Yet how little do they present which was not 
 familiar for years in our anti-slavery meetings ! 
 Look, too, at the last great effort of the idol of 
 so many thousands, Mr. Senator Sumner, 
 the discussion of a great national question," 
 of which it has been said that we must go 
 back to Webster's reply to Hayne, and Fisher 
 Ames on the Jay treaty, to find its equal in Con- 
 gress, praise which we might perhaps qualify, if 
 
THE ABOLITION MOVEMENT. 243 
 
 any adequate report were left us of some of the 
 noble orations of Adams. No one can be blind 
 to the skilful use he has made of his materials, 
 the consummate ability with which he has mar- 
 shalled them, and the radiant glow which his 
 genius has thrown over all. Yet, with the ex- 
 ception of his reference to the antislavery de- 
 bate in Congress in 1817, there is hardly a train 
 of thought or argument, and no single fact in 
 the whole speech, which has not been familiar 
 in our meetings and essays for the last ten 
 years. * * * 18 
 
 The relations of the American Church to 
 slavery, and the duties of private Christians, 
 the whole casuistry of this portion of the ques- 
 tion, so momentous among descendants of the 
 Puritans, have been discussed with great 
 acuteness and rare common-sense by Messrs. 
 Garrison, Goodell, Gerrit Smith, Pillsbury, and 
 Foster. They have never attempted to judge 
 the American Church by any standard except 
 that which she has herself laid down, never 
 claimed that she should be perfect, but have 
 contented themselves by demanding that she 
 should be consistent. They have never judged 
 her except out of her own mouth, and on facts 
 asserted by her own presses and leaders. The 
 
244 WENDELL PHILLIPS. 
 
 sundering of the Methodist and Baptist de- 
 nominations, and the universal agitation of 
 the religious world, are the best proof of the 
 sagacity with which their measures have been 
 chosen, the cogent arguments they have used, 
 and the indisputable facts on which their criti- 
 cisms have been founded. In nothing have the 
 Abolitionists shown more sagacity or more 
 thorough knowledge of their countrymen than 
 in the course they have pursued in relation to 
 the Church. None but a New-Englander can 
 appreciate the power which church organiza- 
 tions wield over all who share the blood of the 
 Puritans. The influence of each sect over its 
 own members is overwhelming, often shutting 
 out, or controlling, all other influences. We 
 have Popes here, all the more dangerous be*, 
 cause no triple crown puts you on your guard. 
 * * * 19 In such a land, the Abolitionists 
 early saw, that, for a moral question like theirs, 
 only two paths lay open : to work through the 
 Church ; that failing, to join battle with it. 
 Some tried long, like Luther, to be Protestants, 
 and yet not come out of Catholicism ; but their 
 eyes were soon opened. Since then we have 
 been convinced that, to come out from the 
 Church, to hold her up as the bulwark of 
 
THE ABOLITION MOVEMENT. 245 
 
 slavery, and to make her shortcomings the 
 main burden of our appeals to the religious 
 sentiment of the community, was our first duty 
 and best policy. This course alienated many 
 friends, and was a subject of frequent rebuke 
 from such men as Dr. Channing. But nothing 
 has ever more strengthened the cause, or won 
 it more influence ; and it has had the healthiest 
 effect on the Church itself. * * * 80 
 
 Unable to command a wide circulation for 
 our books and journals, we have been obliged 
 to bring ourselves into close contact with the 
 people, and to rely mainly on public addresses. 
 These have been our most efficient instrumen- 
 tality. For proof that these addresses have 
 been full of pertinent facts, sound sense, and 
 able arguments, we must necessarily point to 
 results, and demand to be tried by our fruits. 
 Within these last twenty years it has been very 
 rare that any fact stated by our lecturers has 
 been disproved, or any statement of theirs suc- 
 cessfully impeached. And for evidence of the 
 soundness, simplicity, and pertinency of their 
 arguments we can only claim that our converts 
 and co-laborers throughout the land have at 
 least the reputation of being specially able " to 
 give a reason for the faith that is in them." 
 
246 WENDELL PHILLIPS. 
 
 I remember that when, in 1845, the present 
 leaders of the Free Soil party, with Daniel 
 Webster in their company, met to draw up the 
 Anti-Texas Address of the Massachusetts Con- 
 vention, they sent to Abolitionists for anti- 
 slavery facts and history, for the remarkable 
 testimonies of our Revolutionary great men 
 which they wished to quote. When, many 
 years ago, the Legislature of Massachusetts 
 wished to send to Congress a resolution affirm- 
 ing the duty of immediate emancipation, the 
 committee sent to William Lloyd Garrison to 
 draw it up, and it stands now on our statute- 
 book as he drafted it. 
 
 How vigilantly, how patiently, did we watch 
 the Texas plot from its commencement ! The 
 politic South felt that its first move had been 
 too bold, and thenceforward worked under- 
 ground. For many a year men laughed at us 
 for entertaining any apprehensions. It was 
 impossible to rouse the North to its peril. 
 David Lee Child was thought crazy because he 
 would not believe there was no danger. His 
 elaborate " Letters on Texas Annexation " are 
 the ablest and most valuable contribution that 
 has been made toward a history of the whole 
 plot. Though we foresaw and proclaimed our 
 
THE ABOLITION MOVEMENT. 247 
 
 conviction that annexation would be, in the 
 end, a fatal step for the South, we did not feel 
 at liberty to relax our opposition, well know- 
 ing the vast increase of strength it would give, 
 at first, to the slave power. I remember being 
 one of a committee which waited on Abbott 
 Lawrence, a year or so only before annexation, 
 to ask his countenance to some general move- 
 ment, without distinction of party, against the 
 Texas scheme. He smiled at our fears, begged 
 us to have no apprehensions ; stating that his 
 correspondence with leading men at Washing- 
 ton enabled him to assure us annexation was 
 impossible, and that the South itself was de- 
 termined to defeat the project. A short time 
 after, Senators and Representatives from Texas 
 took their seats in Congress ! 
 
 Many of these services to the slave were 
 done before I joined his cause. In thus re- 
 ferring to them, do not suppose me merely 
 seeking occasion of eulogy on my predeces- 
 sors and present co-laborers. I recall these 
 things only to rebut the contemptuous criti- 
 cism which some about us make the excuse for 
 their past neglect of the movement, and in 
 answer to " Ion's " representation of our course 
 as reckless fanaticism, childish impatience, ut- 
 
248 WENDELL PHILLIPS. 
 
 ter lack of good sense, and of our meetings as 
 scenes only of excitement, of reckless and in- 
 discriminate denunciation. I assert that every 
 social, moral, economical, religious, political, 
 and historical aspect of the question has been 
 ably and patiently examined. And all this has 
 been done with an industry and ability which 
 have left little for the professional skill, schol- 
 arly culture, and historical learning of the new 
 laborers to accomplish. If the people are still 
 in doubt, it is from the inherent difficulty of 
 the subject, or a hatred of light, not from want 
 of it. * * *" 
 
 Sir, when a nation sets itself to do evil, and 
 all its leading forces, wealth, party, and piety, 
 join in the career, it is impossible but that those 
 who offer a constant opposition should be hated 
 and maligned, no matter how wise, cautious, 
 and well planned their course may be. We are 
 peculiar sufferers in this way. The community 
 has come to hate its reproving Nathan so bit- 
 terly, that even those whom the relenting part 
 of it are beginning to regard as standard- 
 bearers of the antislavery host think it unwise 
 to avow any connection or sympathy with him. 
 I refer to some of the leaders of the political 
 movement against slavery. They feel it to be 
 
THE ABOLITION MOVEMENT. 249 
 
 their mission to marshal and use as effectively 
 as possible the present convictions of the peo- 
 ple. They cannot afford to encumber them- 
 selves with the odium which twenty years of 
 angry agitation have engendered in great sects 
 sore from unsparing rebuke, parties galled by 
 constant defeat, and leading men provoked by 
 unexpected exposure. They are willing to 
 confess, privately, that our movement pro- 
 duced theirs, and that its continued existence 
 is the very breath of their life. But, at the 
 same time, they would fain walk on the road 
 without being soiled by too close contact with 
 the rough pioneers who threw it up. They are 
 wise and honorable, and their silence is very 
 expressive. 
 
 When I speak of their eminent position and 
 acknowledged ability, another thought strikes 
 me. Who converted these men and their dis- 
 tinguished associates ? It is said we have 
 shown neither sagacity in plans, nor candor in 
 discussion, nor ability. Who, then, or what 
 converted Burlingame and Wilson, Sumner and 
 Adams, Palfrey and Mann, Chase and Hale, and 
 Phillips and Giddings ? Who taught the Chris- 
 tian Register, the Daily Advertiser, and that 
 class of prints, that there were such things as a 
 
250 WENDELL PHILLIPS. 
 
 slave and a slave-holder in the land, and so gave 
 them some more intelligent basis than their 
 mere instincts to hate William Lloyd Garrison? 
 What magic wand was it whose touch made 
 the todying servility of the land start up the 
 real demon that it was, and at the same time 
 gathered into the slave's service the professional 
 ability, ripe culture, and personal integrity 
 which grace the Free Soil ranks ? We never 
 argue ! These men, then, were converted by 
 simple denunciation ! They were all converted 
 by the " hot," " reckless," " ranting," " bigoted," 
 " fanatic " Garrison, who never troubled him- 
 self about facts, nor stopped to argue with an 
 opponent, but straightway knocked him down ! 
 My old and valued friend, Mr. Sumner, often 
 boasts that he was a reader of the Liberator 
 before I was. Do not criticise too much the 
 agency by which such men were converted. 
 That blade has a double edge. Our reckless 
 course, our empty rant, our fanaticism, has 
 made Abolitionists of some of the best and 
 ablest men in the land. We are inclined to 
 go on, and see if, even with such poor tools, we 
 cannot make some more. Antislavery zeal and 
 the roused conscience of the " godless come- 
 outers " made the trembling South demand the 
 
THE ABOLITION MOVEMENT. 
 
 Fugitive Slave Law, and the Fugitive Slave 
 Law " provoked " Mrs. Stowe to the good work 
 of " Uncle Tom." That is something ! Let 
 me say, in passing, that you will nowhere find 
 an earlier or more generous appreciation, or 
 more flowing eulogy, of these men and their 
 labors, than in the columns of the Liberator. 
 No one, however feeble, has ever peeped or 
 muttered, in any quarter, that the vigilant eye 
 of the Pioneer has not recognized him. He 
 has stretched out the right hand of a most 
 cordial welcome the moment any man's face 
 was turned Zionward. 
 
 I do not mention these things to praise Mr. 
 Garrison ; I do not stand here for that purpose. 
 You will not deny if you do, I can prove it 
 that the movement of the Abolitionists con- 
 verted these men. Their constituents were 
 converted by it. The assault upon the right of 
 petition, upon the right to print and speak of 
 slavery, the denial of the right of Congress over 
 the District, the annexation of Texas, the Fugi- 
 tive Slave Law, were measures which the anti- 
 slavery movement provoked, and the discussion 
 of which has made all the Abolitionists we have. 
 The antislavery cause, then, converted these 
 men ; it gave them a constituency ; it gave 
 
252 WENDELL PHILLIPS. 
 
 them an opportunity to speak, and it gave 
 them a public to listen. The antislavery cause 
 gave them their votes, got them their offices, 
 furnished them their facts, gave them their 
 audience. If you tell me they cherished all 
 these principles in their own breasts before Mr. 
 Garrison appeared, I can only say, if the anti- 
 slavery movement did not give them their 
 ideas, it surely gave the courage to utter them. 
 In such circumstances, is it not singular that 
 the name of William Lloyd Garrison has never 
 been pronounced on the floor of the United 
 States Congress linked with any epithet but 
 that of contempt ! No one of those men who 
 owe their ideas, their station, their audience, to 
 him, have ever thought it worth their while to 
 utter one word in grateful recognition of the 
 power which called them into being. When 
 obliged, by the course of their argument, to 
 treat the question historically, they can go 
 across the water to Clarkson and Wilberforce 
 yes, to a safe salt-water distance. As Daniel 
 Webster, when he was talking to the farmers of 
 Western New York, and wished to contrast slave 
 labor and free labor, did not dare to compare 
 New York with Virginia sister States, under 
 the same government, planted by the same 
 
THE ABOLITION MOVEMENT. 253 
 
 race, worshipping at the same altar, speaking 
 the same language identical in all respects, 
 save that one in which he wished to seek the 
 contrast ; but no ; he compared it with Cuba 
 the contrast was so close ! Catholic Protes- 
 tant ; Spanish Saxon ; despotism municipal 
 institutions ; readers of Lope de Vega and of 
 Shakespeare ; mutterers of the Mass children 
 of the Bible ! But Virginia is too near home ! 
 So is Garrison ! One would have thought there 
 was something in the human breast which 
 would sometimes break through policy. These 
 noble-hearted men whom I have named must 
 surely have found quite irksome the constant 
 practice of what Dr. Gardiner used to call " that 
 despicable virtue, prudence." " One would have 
 thought, when they heard that name spoken 
 with contempt, their ready eloquence would 
 have leaped from its scabbard to avenge even a 
 word that threatened him with insult. But it 
 never came never ! I do not say I blame 
 them. Perhaps they thought they should serve 
 the cause better by drawing a broad black line 
 between themselves and him. Perhaps they 
 thought the Devil could be cheated : I do 
 
 not. 
 
 * -x- * -x- * * *>* 
 
254 WENDELL PHILLIPS. 
 
 Caution is not always good policy in a cause 
 like ours. It is said that, when Napoleon saw 
 the day going against him, he used to throw 
 away all the rules of war, and trust himself to 
 the hot impetuosity of his soldiers. The masses 
 are governed more by impulse than conviction, 
 and even were it not so, the convictions of 
 most men are on our side, and this will surely 
 appear, if we can only pierce the crust of their 
 prejudice or indifference. I observe that our 
 Free Soil friends never stir their audience so 
 deeply as when some individual leaps beyond 
 the platform, and strikes upon the very heart of 
 the people. Men listen to discussions of laws 
 and tactics with ominous patience. It is when 
 Mr. Sumner, in Faneuil Hall, avows his deter- 
 mination to disobey the Fugitive Slave Law, and 
 cries out : " I was a man before I was a Com- 
 missioner," when Mr. Giddings says of the 
 fall of slavery, quoting Adams : " Let it come. 
 If it must come in blood, yet I say let it come ! " 
 that their associates on the platform are sure 
 they are wrecking the party, while many a 
 heart beneath beats its first pulse of anti- 
 slavery life. 
 
 These are brave words. When I compare 
 them with the general tone of Free Soil men in 
 
THE ABOLITION MOVEMENT. 25$ 
 
 Congress, I distrust the atmosphere of Wash- 
 ington and of politics. These men move about, 
 Sauls and Goliaths among us, taller by many a 
 cubit. There they lose port and stature. Mr. 
 Sumner's speech in the Senate unsays no part 
 of his Faneuil Hall pledge. But, though dis- 
 cussing the same topic, no one would gather 
 from any word or argument that the speaker 
 ever took such ground as he did in Faneuil 
 Hall. It is all through, the law, the manner of 
 the surrender, not the surrender itself, of the 
 slave, that he objects to. As my friend Mr. 
 Pillsbury so forcibly says, so far as any thing in 
 the speech shows, he puts the slave behind the 
 jury trial, behind the habeas corpus act, and be- 
 hind the new interpretation of the Constitution, 
 and says to the slave claimant : " You must get 
 through all these before you reach him ; but, if 
 you can get through all these, you may have 
 him ! " It was no tone like this which made 
 the old Hall rock ! Not if he got through 
 twelve jury trials, and forty habeas corpus acts, 
 and constitutions built high as yonder monu- 
 ment, would he permit so much as the shadow 
 of a little finger of the slave claimant to touch 
 the slave ! At least so he was understood. 
 * # * 34 jyj n Mann, in his speech of February 
 
256 WENDELL PHILLIPS. 
 
 15, 1850, says: " The States being separated, I 
 would as soon return my own brother or sister 
 into bondage, as I would return a fugitive slave. 
 Before God, and Christ, and all Christian men, 
 they are my brothers and sisters." What a 
 condition ! From the lips, too, of a champion 
 of the Higher Law! Whether the States be 
 separate or united, neither my brother nor 
 any other man's brother shall, with my consent, 
 go back to bondage ! So speaks the heart 
 Mr. Mann's version is that of the politi- 
 cian. 
 
 * # * * * * #" 
 This seems to me a very mistaken strain. 
 Whenever slavery is banished from our na- 
 tional jurisdiction, it will be a momentous gain, 
 a vast stride. But let us not mistake the half- 
 way house for the end of the journey. I need 
 not say that it matters not to Abolitionists 
 under what special law slavery exists. Their 
 battle lasts while it exists anywhere, and I 
 doubt not Mr. Sumner and Mr. Giddings feel 
 themselves enlisted for the whole war." I will 
 even suppose, what neither of these gentlemen 
 states, that their plan includes not only that 
 slavery shall be abolished in the District and 
 Territories but that the slave basis of represen- 
 
THE ABOLITION MOVEMENT. 2$/ 
 
 tation shall be struck from the Constitution, 
 and the slave-surrender clause construed away. 
 But even then does Mr. Giddings or Mr. Sum- 
 ner really believe that slavery, existing in its 
 full force in the States, " will cease to vex our 
 national politics ? " Can they point to any 
 State where a powerful oligarchy, possessed of 
 immense wealth, has ever existed without at- 
 tempting to meddle in the government ? Even 
 now, does not manufacturing, banking, and 
 commercial capital perpetually vex our politics? 
 Why should not slave capital exert the same in- 
 fluence ? Do they imagine that a hundred thou- 
 sand men, possessed of two thousand millions 
 of dollars, which they feel the spirit of the age 
 is seeking to tear from their grasp, will not 
 eagerly catch at all the support they can obtain 
 by getting the control of the government? In 
 a land where the dollar is almighty, " where the 
 sin of not being rich is only atoned for by the 
 effort to become so," do they doubt that such 
 an oligarchy will generally succeed ? Besides, 
 banking and manufacturing stocks are not 
 urged by despair to seek a controlling influence 
 in politics. They know they are about equally 
 safe, whichever party rules that no party 
 wishes to legislate their rights away. Slave, 
 
 VOL. II. 17 
 
258 WENDELL PHILLIPS. 
 
 property knows that its being allowed to exist 
 depends on its having the virtual control of the 
 government." Its constant presence in politics 
 is dictated, therefore, by despair, as well as by 
 the wish to secure fresh privileges. Money, 
 however, is not the only strength of the slave 
 power. That, indeed, were enough, in an age 
 when capitalists are our feudal barons. But, 
 though driven entirely from national shelter, 
 the slave-holders would have the strength of old 
 associations, and of peculiar laws in their own 
 States, which give those States wholly into 
 their hands. A weaker prestige, fewer privi- 
 leges, and less comparative wealth, have ena- 
 bled the British aristocracy to rule England for 
 two centuries, though the root of their strength 
 was cut at Naseby. It takes ages for deeply- 
 rooted institutions to die ; and driving slavery 
 into the States will hardly be our Naseby. * * *" 
 And Mr. Sumner " knows no better aim, un- 
 der the Constitution, than to bring back the 
 government" to where it was in 1789! Has 
 the voyage been so very honest and prosperous 
 a one, in his opinion, that his only wish is to 
 start again with the same ship, the same crew, 
 and the same sailing orders ? Grant all he 
 claims as to the state of public opinion, th'e in- 
 
THE ABOLITION MOVEMENT. 
 
 tentions of leading men, and the form of our 
 institutions at that period ; still, with all these 
 checks on wicked men, and helps to good ones, 
 here we are, in 1853, according to his own 
 showing, ruled by slavery, tainted to the core 
 with slavery, and binding the infamous Fugitive 
 Slave Law like an honorable frontlet on our 
 brows. The more accurate and truthful his 
 glowing picture of the public virtue of 1789, the 
 stronger my argument. If even all those great 
 patriots, and all that enthusiasm for justice 
 and liberty, did not avail to keep us safe in 
 such a Union, what will? In such desperate 
 circumstances, can his statesmanship devise no 
 better aim than to try the same experiment 
 over again, under precisely the same condi- 
 tions ? What new guaranties does he propose 
 to prevent the voyage from being again turned 
 into a piratical slave-trading cruise ? None I 
 Have sixty years taught us nothing ? In 1660, 
 the English thought, in recalling Charles II., 
 that the memory of that scaffold which had 
 once darkened the windows of Whitehall would 
 be guaranty enough for his good behavior. 
 But, spite of the spectre, Charles II. repeated 
 Charles I., and James outdid him. Wiser by 
 this experience, when the nation in 1689 got 
 
260 WENDELL PHILLIPS. 
 
 another chance, they trusted to no guaranties, 
 but so arranged the very elements of their 
 government that William III. could not repeat 
 Charles I. Let us profit by the lesson. * * * 39 
 If all I have said to you is untrue, if I have 
 exaggerated, explain to me this fact. In 1831, 
 Mr. Garrison commenced a paper advocating 
 the doctrine of immediate emancipation. He 
 had against him the thirty thousand churches 
 and all the clergy of the country, its wealth, 
 its commerce, its press. In 1831, what was the 
 state of things? There was the most entire 
 ignorance and apathy on the slave question. 
 If men knew of the existence of slavery, it was 
 only as a part of picturesque Virginia life. No 
 one preached, no one talked, no one wrote 
 about it. No whisper of it stirred the surface 
 of the political sea. The church heard of it 
 occasionally, when some colonization agent 
 asked funds to send the blacks to Africa. Old 
 school-books tainted with some antislavery 
 selections had passed out of use, and new ones 
 were compiled to suit the times. Soon as any 
 dissent from the prevailing faith appeared, 
 every one set himself to crush it. The pulpits 
 preached at it ; the press denounced it ; mobs 
 tore down houses, threw presses into the fire 
 
THE ABOLITION MOVEMENT. 261 
 
 and the stream, and shot the editors ; religious 
 conventions tried to smother it ; parties arrayed 
 themselves against it. Daniel Webster boasted 
 in the Senate, that he had never introduced the 
 subject of slavery to that body, and never would. 
 Mr. Clay, in 1839, makes a speech for the Presi- 
 dency, in which he says, that to discuss the sub- 
 ject of slavery is moral treason, and that no 
 man has a right to introduce the subject into 
 Congress. Mr. Benton, in 1844, laid down his 
 platform, and he not only denies the right, but 
 asserts that he never has and never will discuss 
 the subject. Yet Mr. Clay, from 1839 down to 
 his death, hardly made a remarkable speech 
 of any kind, except on slavery. Mr. Webster, 
 having indulged now and then in a little easy 
 rhetoric, as at Niblo's and elsewhere, opens his 
 mouth in 1840, generously contributing his aid 
 to both sides, and stops talking about it only 
 when death closes his lips. Mr. Benton's six 
 or eight speeches in the United States Senate 
 have all been on the subject of slavery in the 
 Southwestern section of the country, and form 
 the basis of whatever claim he has to the char- 
 acter of a statesman, and he owes his seat in 
 the next Congress somewhat, perhaps, to anti- 
 slavery pretentions ! The Whig and Demo- 
 
262 WENDELL PHILLIPS. 
 
 cratic parties pledged themselves just as 
 emphatically against the antislavery discussion, 
 against agitation and free speech. These 
 men said : " It sha'n't be talked about ; it 
 won't be talked about ! " These are your 
 statesmen ! men who understand the present 
 that is, and mould the future ! The man 
 who understands his own time, and whose 
 genius moulds the future to his views, he is a 
 statesman, is he not? These men devoted 
 themselves to banks, to the tariff, to internal 
 improvements, to constitutional and financial 
 questions. They said to slavery : " Back ! no 
 entrance here ! We pledge ourselves against 
 you." And then there came up a little printer- 
 boy, who whipped them into the traces, and 
 made them talk, like Hotspur's starling, nothing 
 BUT slavery. He scattered all these gigantic 
 shadows, tariff, bank, constitutional questions, 
 financial questions ; and slavery, like the colos- 
 sal head in Walpole's romance, came up and 
 filled the whole political horizon ! Yet you 
 must remember he is not a statesman ! he 
 is a " fanatic." He has no discipline, Mr. 
 " Ion " says so ; he does not understand the 
 " discipline that is essential to victory " ! This 
 man did not understand his own time, he did 
 
THE ABOLITION MOVEMENT. 263 
 
 not know what the future was to be, he was 
 not able to shape it he had no " prudence," 
 he had no " foresight " ! Daniel Webster says, 
 " I have never introduced this subject, and 
 never will," and dies broken-hearted because 
 he had not been able to talk enough about it ! 
 Benton says, " I will never speak of slavery," 
 and lives to break with his party on this issue ! 
 Clay says it is " moral treason " to introduce 
 the subject into Congress and lives to see 
 Congress turned into an antislavery debating 
 society, to suit the purpose of one " too power- 
 ful individual." * * * so Remember who it 
 was that said in 1831: "I am in earnest 
 I will not equivocate I will not excuse I 
 will not retreat a single inch and I will be 
 heard! " That speaker has lived twenty-two 
 years, and the complaint of twenty-three mil- 
 lions of people is, " Shall we never hear of any 
 thing but slavery? * * * SI Well, it is all 
 HIS fault [pointing to Mr. Garrison]. * * * M 
 It seems to me that such men may point to the 
 present aspect of the nation, to their originally 
 avowed purpose, to the pledges and efforts of 
 all your great men against them, and then let 
 you determine to which side the credit of sa- 
 gacity and statesmanship belongs. Napoleon 
 
264 WENDELL PHILLIPS. 
 
 busied himself at St. Helena in showing how 
 Wellington ought to have conquered at Water- 
 loo. The world has never got time to listen to 
 the explanation. Sufficient for it that the allies 
 entered Paris. 
 
 It may sound strange to some, this claim for 
 Mr. Garrison of a profound statesmanship. 33 
 Men have heard him styled a mere fanatic so 
 long that they are incompetent to judge him 
 fairly. " The phrases men are accustomed," 
 says Goethe, " to repeat incessantly, end by be- 
 coming convictions, and ossify the organs of in- 
 telligence." I cannot accept you, therefore, as 
 my jury. I appeal from Festus to Caesar, from 
 the prejudice of our streets to the common- 
 sense of the world, and to your children. 
 
 Every thoughtful and unprejudiced mind 
 must see that such an evil as slavery will yield 
 only to the most radical treatment. If you con- 
 sider the work we have to do, you will not 
 think us needlessly aggressive, or that we dig 
 down unnecessarily deep in laying the founda- 
 tions of our enterprise. A money power of two 
 thousand millions of dollars, as the prices of 
 slaves now range, held by a small body of able 
 and desperate men ; that body raised into a 
 political aristocracy by special constitutional 
 
THE ABOLITION MOVEMENT. 26$ 
 
 provisions ; cotton, the product of slave labor, 
 forming the basis of our whole foreign com- 
 merce, and the commercial class thus subsi- 
 dized ; the press bought up, the pulpit reduced 
 to vassalage, the heart of the common people 
 chilled by a bitter prejudice against the black 
 race ; our leading men bribed, by ambition, 
 either to silence or open hostility ; in such a 
 land, on what shall an Abolitionist rely ? On a 
 few cold prayers, mere lip-service, and never 
 from the heart ? On a church resolution, hid- 
 den often in its records, and meant only as a 
 decent cover for servility in daily practice ? On 
 political parties, with their superficial influence 
 at best, and seeking ordinarily only to use exist- 
 ing prejudices to the best advantage ? Slavery 
 has deeper root here than any aristocratic insti- 
 tution has in Europe ; and politics is but the 
 common pulse-beat, of which revolution is the 
 fever-spasm. Yet we have seen European aris- 
 tocracy survive storms which seemed to reach 
 down to the primal strata of European life. 
 Shall we, then, trust to mere politics, where 
 even revolution has failed ? How shall the 
 stream rise above its fountain ? Where shall 
 our church organizations or parties get strength 
 to attack their great parent and moulder, the 
 
266 WENDELL PHILLIPS. 
 
 slave power ? Shall the thing formed say to 
 him that formed it, Why hast thou made me 
 thus? The old jest of one who tried to lift 
 himself in his own basket, is but a tame picture 
 of the man who imagines that, by working 
 solely through existing sects and parties, he can 
 destroy slavery. Mechanics say nothing, but 
 an earthquake strong enough to move all Egypt 
 can bring down the pyramids. 
 
 Experience has confirmed these views. The 
 Abolitionists who have acted on them have a 
 " short; method " with all unbelievers. They 
 have but to point to their own success, in con- 
 trast with every other man's failure. To waken 
 the nation to its real state, and chain it to the 
 consideration of this one duty, is half the work. 
 So much we have done. Slavery has been made 
 the question of this generation. To startle the 
 South to madness, so that every step she takes, 
 in her blindness, is one step more toward ruin, 
 is much. This we have done. Witness Texas 
 and the Fugitive Slave Law. 84 
 
 To have elaborated for the nation the only 
 plan of redemption, pointed out the only 
 exodus from this " sea of troubles," is much. 
 This we claim to have done in our motto of IM- 
 MEDIATE, UNCONDITIONAL, EMANCIPATION ON 
 
THE ABOLITION MOVEMENT. 267 
 
 THE SOIL. The closer any statesmanlike mind 
 looks into the question, the more favor our 
 plan finds with it. The Christian asks fairly of 
 the infidel, " If this religion be not from God, 
 how do you explain its triumph, and the history 
 of the first three centuries ? " Our question is 
 similar. If our agitation has not been wisely 
 planned and conducted, explain for us the his- 
 tory of the last twenty years ! Experience is 
 a safe light to walk by, and he is not a rash 
 man who expects success in future from the 
 same means which have secured it in times 
 past. 
 
CHARLES SUMNER,* 
 
 OF MASSACHUSETTS. 1 
 (BORN 1811, DIED 1874.) 
 
 ON THE REPEAL OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW 
 
 IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE, 
 AUGUST 26, 1852. a 
 
 THURSDAY, 26TH AUGUST, 1852. The Civil 
 and Diplomatic Appropriation Bill being under 
 consideration, the following amendment was 
 moved by Mr. Hunter, of Virginia, on the rec- 
 ommendation of the Committee on Finance : 
 
 " That, where the ministerial officers of the 
 United States have or shall incur extraordinary 
 expense in executing the laws thereof, the pay- 
 ment of which is not specifically provided for, 
 the President of the United States is authorized 
 to allow the payment thereof, under the special 
 taxation of the District or Circuit Court of the 
 District in which the said services have been or 
 
 * For notes on Sumner, see Appendix, p. 420. 
 268 
 
REPEAL OF FUGITIVE SLA VE LA W. 269 
 
 shall be rendered, to be paid from the appro- 
 priation for defraying the expenses of the 
 Judiciary." 
 
 Mr. Sumner seized the opportunity for which 
 he had been waiting, and at once moved the 
 following amendment to the amendment : 
 
 " Provided, That no such allowance shall be 
 authorized for any expenses incurred in execut- 
 ing the Act of September 18, 1850, for the sur- 
 render of fugitives from service or labor ; which 
 said Act is hereby repealed." 
 
 On this he took the floor, and spoke as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 MR. PRESIDENT, 
 
 Here is a provision for extraordinary ex- 
 pense incurred in executing the laws of 
 the United States. Extraordinary expenses ! 
 Sir, beneath these specious words lurks the 
 very subject on which, by a solemn vote of 
 this body, I was refused a hearing. Here 
 it is ; no longer open to the charge of being 
 an " abstraction," but actually presented for 
 practical legislation ; not introduced by me, 
 but by the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Hunter), 
 on the recommendation of an important com- 
 
2/0 CHARLES SUMNER. 
 
 mittee of the Senate ; not brought forward 
 weeks ago, when there was ample time for dis- 
 cussion, but only at this moment, without any 
 reference to the late period of the session* 
 The amendment which I offer proposes to re- 
 move one chief occasion of these extraordin- 
 ary expenses. Beyond all controversy or cavil 
 it is strictly in order. And now, at last, among 
 these final, crowded days of our duties here, 
 but at this earliest opportunity, I am to be 
 heard, not as a favor, but as a right. The 
 graceful usages of this body may be abandoned, 
 but the established privileges of debate cannot 
 be abridged. Parliamentary courtesy may be 
 forgotten, but parliamentary law must prevail. 
 The subject is broadly before the Senate. By 
 the blessing of God it shall be discussed. 
 
 Sir, a severe lawgiver of early Greece vainly 
 sought to secure permanence for his imperfect 
 institutions by providing that the citizen who at 
 any time attempted their repeal or alteration 
 should appear in the public assembly with a 
 halter about his neck, ready to be drawn, if his 
 proposition failed. A tyrannical spirit among 
 us, in unconscious imitation of this antique and 
 discarded barbarism, seeks to surround an 
 offensive institution with similar safeguard. 
 
REPEAL OF FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 2JI 
 
 In the existing distemper of the public mind, 
 and at this present juncture, no man can enter 
 upon the service which I now undertake, with- 
 out personal responsibility, such as can be sus- 
 tained only by that sense of duty which, under 
 God, is always our best support. That personal 
 responsibility I accept. Before the Senate and 
 the country let me be held accountable for this 
 act and for every word which I utter. 
 
 With me, Sir, there is no alternative. Pain- 
 fully convinced of the unutterable wrong and 
 woe of Slavery, profoundly believing, that, 
 according to the true spirit of the Constitution 
 and the sentiments of the Fathers, it can find 
 no place under our National Government, 
 that it is in every respect sectional, and in no 
 respect national, that it is always and every- 
 where creature and dependent of the States, 
 and never anywhere creature or dependent of 
 the Nation, and that the Nation can never, 
 by legislative or other act, impart to it any 
 support, under the Constitution of the United 
 States, with these convictions I could not 
 allow this session to reach its close without 
 making or seizing an opportunity to declare 
 myself openly against the usurpation, injustice, 
 and cruelty of the late intolerable enactment 
 
2/2 CHARLES SUMNER. 
 
 for the recovery of fugitive slaves. Full well I 
 know, Sir, the difficulties of this discussion, 
 arising from prejudices of opinion and from 
 adverse conclusions strong and sincere as my 
 own. Full well I know that I am in a small 
 minority, with few here to whom I can look for 
 sympathy or support. Full well I know that I 
 must utter things unwelcome to many in this 
 body, which I cannot do without pain. Full 
 well I know that the institution of Slavery in 
 our country, which I now proceed to consider, 
 is as sensitive as it is powerful, possessing a 
 power to shake the whole land, with a sensitive- 
 ness that shrinks and trembles at the touch. 
 But while these things may properly prompt me 
 to caution and reserve, they cannot change my 
 duty, or my determination to perform it. For 
 this I willingly forget myself and all personal 
 consequences. The favor and good-will of my 
 fellow-citizens, of my brethren of the Senate, 
 Sir, grateful to me as they justly are, I am 
 ready, if required, to sacrifice. Whatever I am 
 or may be I freely offer to this cause. 
 
 Here allow, for one moment, a reference to 
 myself and my position. Sir, I have never 
 been a politician. The slave of principles, I 
 call no party master. By sentiment, education, 
 
REPEAL OF FUGITIVE SLA VE LA W. 273 
 
 i 
 
 and conviction a friend of Human Rights in 
 their utmost expansion, I have ever most sin- 
 cerely embraced the Democratic Idea, not, 
 indeed, as represented or professed by any 
 party, but according to its real significance, as 
 transfigured in the Declaration of Independence 
 and in the injunctions of Christianity. In this 
 idea I see no narrow advantage merely for in- 
 dividuals or classes, but the sovereignty of the 
 people, and the greatest happiness of all secured 
 by equal laws. Amidst the vicissitudes of 
 public affairs I shall hold fast always to this 
 idea, and to any political party which truly em- 
 braces it. 
 
 Party does not constrain me ; nor is my inde- 
 pendence lessened by any relations to the office 
 which gives me a title to be heard on this floor. 
 Here, Sir, I speak proudly. By no effort, by no 
 desire of my own, I find myself a Senator of the 
 United States. Never before have I held pub- 
 lic office of any kind. With the ample oppor- 
 tunities of private life I was content. No 
 tombstone for me could bear a fairer inscription 
 than this : " Here lies one who, without the 
 honors or emoluments of public station, did 
 something for his fellowmen." From such 
 simple aspirations I was taken away by the 
 
 VOL. II. 1 8 
 
2/4 CHARLES SUMNER. 
 
 free choice of my native Commonwealth, and 
 placed at this responsible post of duty, without 
 personal obligation of any kind, beyond what 
 was implied in my life and published words. 
 The earnest friends by whose confidence I was 
 first designated asked nothing from me, and 
 throughout the long conflict which ended in 
 my election rejoiced in the position which I 
 most carefully guarded. To all my language 
 was uniform : that I did not desire to be brought 
 forward ; that I would do nothing to promote 
 the result ; that I had no pledges or promises 
 to offer ; that the office should seek me, and 
 not I the office ; and that it should find me in 
 all respects an independent man, bound to no 
 party and to no human being, but only, accord- 
 ing to my best judgment, to act for the good 
 of all. Again, Sir, I speak with pride, both for 
 myself and others, when I add that these 
 avowals found a sympathizing response. In 
 this spirit I have come here, and in this spirit I 
 shall speak to-day. 
 
 Rejoicing in my independence, and claiming 
 nothing from party ties, I throw myself upon 
 the candor and magnanimity of the Senate. I 
 ask your attention ; I trust not to abuse it. 
 I may speak strongly, for I shall speak openly 
 
REPEAL OF FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 2?$ 
 
 and from the strength of my convictions. I 
 may speak warmly, for I shall speak from the 
 heart. But in no event can I forget the ameni- 
 ties which belong to debate, and which especially 
 become this body. Slavery I must condemn 
 with my whole soul ; but here I need only bor- 
 row the language of slaveholders ; nor would it 
 accord with my habits or my sense of justice to 
 exhibit them as the impersonation of the insti- 
 tution Jefferson calls it the " enormity " 
 which they cherish. Of them I do not speak ; 
 but without fear and without favor, as without 
 impeachment of any person, I assail this wrong. 
 Again, Sir, I may err ; but it will be with the 
 Fathers. I plant myself on the ancient ways 
 of the Republic, with its grandest names, its 
 surest landmarks, and all its original altar-fires 
 about me. 
 
 And now, on the very threshold, I encounter 
 the objection, that there is a final settlement, 
 in principle and substance, of the question of 
 slavery, and that all discussion of it is closed. 
 Both the old political parties, by formal resolu- 
 tions, in recent conventions at Baltimore, have 
 united in this declaration. On a subject which 
 for years has agitated the public mind, which 
 yet palpitates in every heart and burns on every 
 
2/6 CHARLES SUMNER. 
 
 tongue, which in its immeasurable importance 
 dwarfs all other subjects, which by its constant 
 and gigantic presence throws a shadow across 
 these halls, which at this very time calls for 
 appropriations to meet extraordinary expenses 
 it has caused, they impose the rule of silence. 
 According to them, Sir, we may speak of every- 
 thing except that alone which is most present 
 in all our minds. 
 
 To this combined effort I might fitly reply, 
 that, with flagrant inconsistency, it challenges 
 the very discussion it pretends to forbid. Their 
 very declaration, on the eve of an election, is, 
 of course, submitted to the consideration and 
 ratification of the people. Debate, inquiry, 
 discussion, are the necessary consequence. 
 Silence becomes impossible. Slavery, which 
 you profess to banish from public attention, 
 openly by your invitation enters every political 
 meeting and every political convention. Nay, 
 at this moment it stalks into this Senate, 
 crying, like the daughters of the horseleech, 
 "Give! give! " 
 
 But no unanimity of politicians can uphold 
 the baseless assumption, that a law, or any con- 
 glomerate of laws, under the name of com- 
 promise, or howsoever called, is final. Nothing 
 
REPEAL OF FUGITIVE SLA VE LA W. 
 
 can be plainer than this, that by no parlia- 
 mentary device or knot can any legislature tie 
 the hands of a succeeding legislature, so as to 
 prevent the full exercise of its -constitutional 
 powers. Each legislature, under a just sense 
 of its responsibility, must judge for itself ; and 
 if it think proper, it may revise, or amend, or 
 absolutely undo the work of any predecessor. 
 The laws of the Medes and Persians are said 
 proverbially to have been unalterable ; but they 
 stand forth in history as a single example where 
 the true principles of all law have been so irra- 
 tionally defied. 
 
 To make a law final, so as not to be reached 
 by Congress, is, by mere legislation, to fasten a 
 new provision on the Constitution. Nay, more ; 
 it gives to the law a character which the 
 very Constitution does not possess. The wise 
 Fathers did not treat the country as a Chinese 
 foot, never to grow after infancy ; but, antici- 
 pating progress, they declared expressly that 
 their great Act is not final. According to the 
 Constitution itself, there is not one of its exist- 
 ing provisions not even that with regard to 
 fugitives from labor which may not at all 
 times be reached by amendment, and thus be 
 drawn into debate. This is rational and just. 
 
278 CHARLES SUMNER. 
 
 Sir, nothing from man's hands, nor law, nor con- 
 stitution, can be final. Truth alone is final. 
 
 Inconsistent and absurd, this effort is tyran- 
 nical also. The responsibility for the recent 
 Slave Act, and for slavery everywhere within 
 the jurisdiction of Congress, necessarily in- 
 volves the right to discuss them. To separate 
 these is impossible. Like the twenty-fifth rule 
 of the House of Representatives against peti- 
 tions on Slavery, now repealed and dishon- 
 ored, the Compromise, as explained and urged, 
 is a curtailment of the actual powers of legisla- 
 tion, and a perpetual denial of the indisputable 
 principle, that the right to deliberate is coex- 
 tensive with the responsibility for an act. To 
 sustain Slavery it is now proposed to trample 
 on free speech. In any country this would 
 be grievous ; but here, where the Constitution 
 expressly provides against abridging freedom 
 of speech, it is a special outrage. In vain do 
 we condemn the despotisms of Europe, while 
 we borrow the rigors with which they repress 
 Liberty, and guard their own uncertain power. 
 For myself, in no factious spirit, but solemnly 
 and in loyalty to the Constitution, as a Sena- 
 tor of the United States, representing a free 
 Commonwealth, I protest against this wrong. 
 
REPEAL OF FUGITIVE SLA VE LA W. 2/g 
 
 On Slavery, as on every other subject, I claim 
 the right to be heard. That right I cannot, I 
 will not abandon. " Give me the liberty to 
 know, to utter, and to argue freely according 
 to conscience, above all liberties " ; these are 
 glowing words, flashed from the soul of John 
 Milton in his struggles with English tyranny. 
 With equal fervor they could be echoed now 
 by every American not already a slave. 
 
 But, Sir, this effort is impotent as tyrannical. 
 Convictions of the heart cannot be repressed. 
 Utterances of conscience must be heard, 
 They break forth with irrepressible might. As 
 well attempt to check the tides of ocean, 
 the currents of the Mississippi, or the rushing 
 waters of Niagara. The discussion of Slavery 
 will proceed, wherever two or three are gathered 
 together, by the fireside, on the highway, at 
 the public meeting, in the church. The move- 
 ment against Slavery is from the Everlasting 
 Arm. Even now it is gathering its forces, soon 
 to be confessed everywhere. It may not be felt 
 yet in the high places of office and power, but 
 all who can put their ears humbly to the ground 
 will hear and comprehend its incessant and 
 advancing tread. 
 
 The relations of the National Government to 
 
28O CHARLES SUMNER. 
 
 Slavery, though plain and obvious, are con- 
 stantly misunderstood. A popular belief at this 
 moment makes Slavery a national institution, 
 and of course renders its support a national 
 duty. The extravagance of this error can 
 hardly be surpassed. An institution which our 
 fathers most carefully omitted to name in the 
 Constitution, which, according to the debates 
 in the Convention, they refused to cover with 
 any " sanction," and which, at the original or- 
 ganization of the Government, was merely 
 sectional, existing nowhere on the national ter- 
 ritory, is now, above all other things, blazoned 
 as national. Its supporters pride themselves 
 as national. The old political parties, while 
 upholding it, claim to be national. A Na- 
 tional Whig is simply a Slavery Whig, and a 
 National Democrat is simply a Slavery Demo- 
 crat, in contradistinction to all who regard 
 Slavery as a sectional institution, within the 
 exclusive control of the States and with which 
 the nation has nothing to do. 
 
 As Slavery assumes to be national, so, by an 
 equally strange perversion, Freedom is degraded 
 to be sectional, and all who uphold it, under 
 the National Constitution, are made to share 
 this same epithet. Honest efforts to secure its 
 
REPEAL OF FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 28 1 
 
 blessings everywhere within the jurisdiction of 
 Congress are scouted as sectional ; and this 
 cause, which the founders of our National Gov- 
 ernment had so much at heart, is called Section- 
 alism. These terms, now belonging to the 
 common places of political speech, are adopted 
 and misapplied by most persons without reflec- 
 tion. But here is the power of Slavery. Ac- 
 cording to a curious tradition of the French 
 language, Louis XIV., the Grand Monarch, by 
 an accidental error of speech, among supple 
 courtiers, changed the gender of a noun. But 
 slavery does more. It changes word for word. 
 It teaches men to say national instead of sec- 
 tional, and sectional instead of national. 
 
 Slavery national ! Sir, this is a mistake and 
 absurdity, fit to have a place in some new col- 
 lection of Vulgar Errors, by some other Sir 
 Thomas Browne, with the ancient, but exploded 
 stories, that the toad has a gem in its head, and 
 that ostriches digest iron. According to the 
 true spirit of the Constitution, and the senti- 
 ments of the Fathers, Slavery, and not Free- 
 dom, is sectional, while Freedom, and not 
 Slavery, is national. On this unanswerable 
 proposition I take my stand, and here com- 
 mences my argument. 
 
282 CHARLES SUMNER. 
 
 The subject presents itself under two princi- 
 pal heads : First, the true relations of the Na- 
 tional Government to Slavery, wherein it will ap- 
 pear that there is no national fountain from 
 which Slavery can be derived, and no national 
 power, under the Constitution, by which it can 
 be supported. Enlightened by this general sur- 
 vey, we shall be prepared to consider, secondly, 
 the true nature of the provision for the rendition 
 of fugitives from service, and herein especially 
 the unconstitutional and offensive legislation 
 of Congress in pursuance thereof. 
 
 I. 
 
 And now for THE TRUE RELATIONS OF THE 
 
 NATIONAL GOVERNMENT TO SLAVERY. These 
 are readily apparent, if we do not neglect well- 
 established principles. 
 
 If slavery be national, if there be any power 
 in the National Government to withhold this 
 institution, as in the recent Slave Act, it 
 must be by virtue of the Constitution. Nor 
 can it be by mere inference, implication, or 
 conjecture. According to the uniform admis- 
 sion of courts and jurists in Europe, again and 
 again promulgated in our country, slavery can 
 
REPEAL OF FUGITIVE SLA VE LAW. 283 
 
 be derived only from clear and special recogni- 
 tion. " The state of Slavery," said Lord Mans- 
 field, pronouncing judgment in the great case 
 of Sommersett, " 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." 
 
 * * # * * * * 
 Of course every power to uphold slavery 
 must have an origin as distinct as that of 
 Slavery itself. Every presumption must be 
 as strong against such a power as against sla- 
 very. A power so peculiar and offensive, so hos- 
 tile to reason, so repugnant to the law of Nature 
 and the inborn rights of man, which des- 
 poils its victim of the fruits of labor, which sub- 
 stitutes concubinage for marriage, which 
 abrogates the relation of parent and child, 
 which, by denial of education, abases the intel- 
 lect, prevents a true knowledge of God, and 
 murders the very soul, which, amidst a plausi- 
 ble physical comfort, degrades man, created in 
 the divine image, to the state of a beast, such 
 a power, so eminent, so transcendent, so tyran- 
 nical, so unjust, can find no place in any system 
 of government, unless by virtue of positive sane- 
 
284 CHARLES SUMNER. 
 
 tion. It can spring from no doubtful phrase. 
 It must be declared by unambiguous words, 
 incapable of a double sense. 
 
 * * # * * * * 
 
 Sir, such, briefly, are the rules of interpreta- 
 tion, which, as applied to the Constitution, fill 
 it with the breath of freedom, 
 
 " Driving far off each thing of sin and guilt." 
 
 To the history and prevailing sentiments of 
 the times we may turn for further assurance. 
 In the spirit of freedom the Constitution was 
 formed. In this spirit our fathers always spoke 
 and acted. In this spirit the National Govern- 
 ment was first organized under Washington. 
 And here I recall a scene, in itself a touch- 
 stone of the period, and an example for us, 
 upon which we may look with pure national 
 pride, while we learn anew the relations of the 
 National Government to Slavery. 
 
 The Revolution was accomplished. The fee- 
 ble Government of the Confederation passed 
 away. The Constitution, slowly matured in a 
 National Convention, discussed before the peo- 
 ple, defended by masterly pens, was adopted. 
 The Thirteen States stood forth a Nation, where 
 was unity without consolidation, and diversity 
 
REPEAL OF FUGITIVE SLA VE LA W. 285 
 
 without discord. The hopes of all were anxi- 
 ously hanging upon the new order of things 
 and the mighty procession of events. With 
 signal unanimity Washington was chosen Pres- 
 ident. Leaving his home at Mount Vernon, 
 he repaired to New York, where the first Con- 
 gress had commenced its session, to assume 
 his place as Chief of the Republic. On the 
 3<Dth of April, 1789, the organization of the 
 Government was completed by his inaugura- 
 tion. Entering the Senate Chamber, where 
 the two Houses were assembled, he was in- 
 formed that they awaited his readiness to 
 receive the oath of office. Without delay, at- 
 tended by the Senators and Representatives, 
 with friends and men of mark gathered about 
 him, he moved to the balcony in front of the 
 edifice. A countless multitude, thronging the 
 open ways, and eagerly watching this great 
 espousal, 
 
 " With reverence look on his majestic face, 
 Proud to be less, but of his godlike race." 
 
 The oath was administered by the Chancellor 
 of New York. At such time, and in such pres- 
 ence, beneath the unveiled heavens, Washing- 
 ton first took this vow upon his lips : " I do 
 
286 CHARLES SUMNER. 
 
 solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute 
 the office of President of the United States, 
 and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, 
 protect, and defend the Constitution of the 
 United States." 
 
 Over the President, on this new occasion, 
 floated the national flag, with its stripes of red 
 and white, its stars on a field of blue. As his 
 patriot eye rested upon the glowing ensign, 
 what currents must have rushed swiftly through 
 his soul. In the early days of the Revolution, 
 in those darkest hours about Boston, after the 
 Battle of Bunker Hill, and before the Declara- 
 tion of Independence, the thirteen stripes had 
 been first unfurled by him, as the emblem of 
 Union among the Colonies for the sake of 
 Freedom. By him, at that time, they had 
 been named the Union Flag. Trial, struggle, 
 and war were now ended, and the Union, which 
 they first heralded, was unalterably established. 
 To every beholder these memories, must have 
 been full of pride and consolation. But, look- 
 ing back upon the scene, there is one cir- 
 cumstance which, more than all its other asso- 
 ciations, fills the soul, more even than the 
 suggestions of Union, which I prize so much. 
 AT THIS MOMENT, WHEN WASHINGTON TOOK 
 
REPEAL OF FUGITIVE SLA VE LA W. 287 
 
 HIS FIRST OATH TO SUPPORT THE CONSTITU- 
 TION OF THE UNITED STATES, THE NATIONAL 
 ENSIGN, NOWHERE WITHIN THE NATIONAL 
 TERRITORY, COVERED A SINGLE SLAVE. Then, 
 indeed, was Slavery Sectional, and Freedom 
 National. 
 
 On the sea an execrable piracy, the trade in 
 slaves, to the national scandal, was still tole- 
 rated under the national flag. In the States, 
 as a sectional institution, beneath the shelter 
 of local laws, Slavery unhappily found a home. 
 But in the only terrritories at this time belong- 
 ing to the nation, the broad region of the 
 Northwest, it was already made impossible, by 
 the Ordinance of Freedom, even before the 
 adoption of the Constitution. The District of 
 Columbia, with its Fatal Dowry, was not yet 
 acquired. 
 
 The government thus organized was Anti- 
 slavery in character. Washington was a slave- 
 holder, but it would be unjust to his memory 
 not to say that he was an Abolitionist also. 
 His opinions do not admit of question. 
 * * * * # # * * 
 
 By the side of Washington, as, standing be- 
 neath the national flag, he swore to support 
 the Constitution, were illustrious men, whose 
 
288 CHARLES SUMNER. 
 
 lives and recorded words now rise in judgment. 
 There was John Adams, the Vice-President, 
 great vindicator and final negotiator of our 
 national independence, whose soul, flaming 
 with Freedom, broke forth in the early declara- 
 tion, that " consenting to Slavery is a sacrile- 
 gious breach of trust," and whose immitigable 
 hostility to this wrong is immortal in his de- 
 scendants. There was also a companion in 
 arms and attached friend, of beautiful genius, 
 the yet youthful and " incomparable " Hamil- 
 ton, fit companion in early glories and fame 
 with that darling of English history, Sir Philip 
 Sidney, to whom the latter epithet has been 
 reserved, who, as member of the Abolition 
 Society of New York, had recently united in a 
 solemn petition for those who, though "free 
 by the laws of God, are held in Slavery by the 
 laws of this State" There, too, was a noble 
 spirit, of spotless virtue, the ornament of human 
 nature, who, like the sun, ever held an unerring 
 course, John Jay. Filling the important post 
 of Secretary for Foreign Affairs under the Con- 
 federation, he found time to organize the " Soci- 
 ety for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves " 
 in New York, and to act as its President, until, 
 by the nomination of Washington, he became 
 
REPEAL OF FUGITIVE SLA VE LA W. 289 
 
 Chief Justice of the United States. In his 
 sight Slavery was an " iniquity," " a sin of crim- 
 son dye," against which ministers of the Gospel 
 should testify, and which the Government 
 should seek in every way to abolish. " Till 
 America comes into this measure," he wrote, 
 " her prayers to Heaven for liberty will be im- 
 pious. This is a strong expression, but it is 
 just. Were I in your legislature, I would pre- 
 pare a bill for the purpose with great care, and 
 I would never cease moving it till it became a 
 law or I ceased to be a member." Such words 
 as these, fitly coming from our leaders, belong 
 to the true glories of the country : 
 
 " While we such precedents can boast at home, 
 Keep thy Fabricius and thy Cato, Rome ! " 
 
 They stood not alone. The convictions and 
 earnest aspirations of the country were with 
 them. At the North these were broad and 
 general. At the South they found fervid utter- 
 ance from slaveholders. By early and pre- 
 cocious efforts for " total emancipation," the 
 author of the Declaration of Independence 
 placed himself foremost among the Abolition- 
 ists of the land. In language now familiar to 
 all, and which can never die, he perpetually de- 
 
 VOL. II. IQ 
 
2QO CHARLES SUM NEK. 
 
 nounced Slavery. He exposed its pernicious 
 influence upon master as well as slave, declared 
 that the love of justice and the love of country 
 pleaded equally for the slave, and that " the 
 abolition of domestic slavery was the greatest 
 object of desire." He believed that "the sacred 
 side was gaining daily recruits," and confidently 
 looked to the young for the accomplishment of 
 this good work. In fitful sympathy with Jef- 
 ferson was another honored son of Virginia, 
 the Orator of Liberty, Patrick Henry, who, 
 while confessing that he was a master of slaves, 
 said : " I will not, I cannot justify it. However 
 culpable my conduct, I will so far pay my 
 devoir to virtue as to own the excellence and 
 rectitude of her precepts, and lament my want 
 of conformity to them." At this very period, 
 in the Legislature of Maryland, on a bill for 
 the relief of oppressed slaves, a young man, 
 afterwards by consummate learning and forensic 
 powers acknowledged head of the American 
 bar, William Pinkney, in a speech of earnest, 
 truthful eloquence, better for his memory 
 than even his professional fame, branded 
 Slavery as " iniquitous and most dishonorable," 
 " founded in a disgraceful traffic," " its continu- 
 ance as shameful as its origin," and he openly 
 
REPEAL OF FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 2gi 
 
 declared, that " 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." 
 
 * * # * # * * 
 At the risk of repetition, but for the sake of 
 clearness, review now this argument, and gather 
 it together. Considering that Slavery is of such 
 an offensive character that it can find sanction 
 only in " positive law," and that ifhas no such 
 " positive " sanction in the Constitution, that 
 the Constitution, according to its preamble, 
 was ordained to " establish justice " and " se- 
 cure the blessings of liberty," that, in the 
 Convention which framed it, and also elsewhere 
 at the time, it was declared not to sanction 
 slavery, that, according to the Declaration of 
 Independence, and the Address of the Conti- 
 nental Congress, the nation was dedicated to 
 " liberty," and the " rights of human nature," 
 that, according to the principles of the com- 
 mon law, the Constitution must be interpreted 
 openly, actively, and perpetually for freedom, 
 that, according to the decision of the Supreme 
 Court, it acts upon slaves, not as property, but 
 as PERSONS, that, at the first organization of 
 the national Government under Washington, 
 
2Q2 CHARLES SUMNER. 
 
 Slavery had no national favor, existed nowhere 
 on the national territory, beneath the national 
 flag, but was openly condemned by Nation, 
 Church, Colleges, and Literature of the time, 
 and, finally, that, according to an amendment 
 of the Constitution, the National Government 
 can exercise only powers delegated to it, among 
 which is none to support Slavery, considering 
 these things, Sir, it is impossible to avoid the 
 single conclusion, that Slavery is in no respect a 
 national institution, and that the Constitution 
 nowhere upholds property in man. 
 
 There is one other special provision of the 
 Constitution, which I have reserved to this 
 stage, not so much from its superior impor- 
 tance, but because it fitly stands by itself. 
 This alone, if practically applied, would carry 
 Freedom to all within its influence. It is an 
 amendment proposed by the First Congress, 
 as follows: 
 
 " No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, 
 without due process of law, ," 
 
 Under this great segis the liberty of every per- 
 son within the national jurisdiction is unequivo- 
 cally placed. I say every person. Of this 
 there can be no question. The word " person " 
 
REPEAL OF FUGITIVE SLA VE LA W. 293 
 
 in the Constitution embraces every human be- 
 ing within its sphere, whether Caucasian, In- 
 dian, or African, from the president to the 
 slave. Show me a person within the national 
 jurisdiction, and I confidently claim for him 
 this protection, no matter what his condition 
 or race or color. The natural meaning of the 
 clause is clear, but a single fact of its history 
 places it in the broad light of noon. As origi- 
 nally recommended by Virginia, North Caro- 
 lina, and Rhode Island, it 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." In re- 
 jecting this limitation, the authors of the 
 amendment revealed their purpose, that no 
 person, under the National Government, of 
 whatever character, should be deprived of lib- 
 erty without due process of law, that is, with- 
 out due presentment, indictment, or other 
 judicial proceeding. But this amendment is 
 nothing less than an express guaranty of Per- 
 sonal Liberty, and an express prohibition of 
 its invasion anywhere, at least within the na- 
 tional jurisdiction. 
 
 Sir, apply these principles, and Slavery will 
 again be as when Washington took his first 
 
2Q4 CHARLES SUMNER. 
 
 oath as President. The Union Flag of the 
 Republic will become once more the flag of 
 Freedom, and at all points within the national 
 jurisdiction will refuse to cover a slave. Be- 
 neath its beneficent folds, wherever it is car- 
 ried, on land or sea, slavery will disappear, like 
 darkness under the arrows of the ascending 
 sun, like the Spirit of Evil before the Angel 
 of the Lord. 
 
 In all national territories Slavery will be 
 impossible. 
 
 On the high seas, under the national flag, 
 Slavery will be impossible. 
 
 In the District of Columbia Slavery will in- 
 stantly cease. 
 
 Inspired by these principles, Congress can 
 give no sanction to Slavery by the admission of 
 new slave States. 
 
 Nowhere under the Constitution can the 
 Nation, by legislation or otherwise, support 
 Slavery, hunt slaves, or hold property in man. 
 
 Such, sir, are my sincere convictions. Ac- 
 cording to the Constitution, as I understand it, 
 in the light of the past and of its true princi- 
 ples, there is no other conclusion which is 
 rational or tenable, which does not defy authori- 
 tative rules of interpretation, does not falsify 
 
REPEAL OF FUGITIVE SLA VE LA W. 2$$ 
 
 indisputable facts of history, does not affront 
 the public opinion in which it had its birth, 
 and does not dishonor the memory of the 
 fathers. And yet politicians of the hour 
 undertake to place these convictions under 
 formal ban. The generous sentiments which 
 filled the early patriots, and impressed upon 
 the government they founded, as upon the 
 coin they circulated, the image and superscrip- 
 tion of LIBERTY, have lost their power. The 
 slave-masters, few in number, amounting to 
 not more than three hundred and fifty thou- 
 sand, according to the recent census, have suc- 
 ceeded in dictating the policy of the National 
 Government, and have written SLAVERY on 
 its front. The change, which began in the de- 
 sire for wealth, was aggravated by the desire 
 for political predominance. Through Slavery 
 the cotton crop increased with its enriching 
 gains ; through Slavery States became part of 
 the slave power. And now an arrogant and 
 unrelenting ostracism is applied, not only to 
 all who express themselves against Slavery, but 
 to every man unwilling to be its menial. A 
 novel test for office is introduced, which would 
 have excluded all the fathers of the Republic, 
 even Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin! 
 
296 CHARLES SUMNER. 
 
 Yes, Sir! Startling it may be, but indispu- 
 table. Could these revered demigods of his- 
 tory once again descend upon earth and mingle 
 in our affairs, not one of them could receive a 
 nomination from the National Convention of 
 either of the two old political parties ! Out of 
 the convictions of their hearts and the utter- 
 ances of their lips against Slavery they would 
 be condemned. 
 
 This single fact reveals the extent to which 
 the National Government has departed from 
 its true course and its great examples. For 
 myself, I know no better aim under the Con- 
 stitution than to bring the Government back 
 to the precise position on this question it occu- 
 pied on the auspicious morning of its first or- 
 ganization by Washington, 
 
 " Nunc retrorsum 
 Vela dare, atque iterate cursus 
 relictos," 
 
 that the sentiments of the Fathers may again 
 prevail with our rulers, and the National Flag 
 may nowhere shelter Slavery. 
 
 To such as count this aspiration unreason- 
 able let me commend a renowned and life-giv- 
 ing precedent of English history. As early as 
 
REPEAL OF FUGITIVE SLA VE LA W. 297 
 
 the days of Queen Elizabeth, a courtier boasted 
 that the air of England was too pure for a slave 
 to breathe, and the Common Law was said to 
 forbid Slavery. And yet, in the face of this 
 vaunt, kindred to that of our fathers, and so 
 truly honorable, slaves were introduced from 
 the West Indies. The custom of Slavery 
 gradually prevailed. Its positive legality was 
 affirmed, in professional opinions, by two emi- 
 nent lawyers, Talbot and Yorke, each after- 
 wards Lord Chancellor. It was also affirmed 
 on the bench by the latter as Lord Hardwicke. 
 England was already a Slave State. The fol- 
 lowing advertisement, copied from a London 
 newspaper, The Public Advertiser, si November 
 22, 1769, shows that the journals there were 
 disfigured as some of ours, even in the District 
 of Columbia. 
 
 " To be sold, a black girl, the property of J. 
 B., eleven years of age, who is extremely 
 handy, works at her needle tolerably, and 
 speaks English perfectly well ; is of an excel- 
 lent temper and willing disposition. Inquire of 
 her owner at the Angel Inn, behind St. Clem- 
 ent's Church, in the Strand." 
 
 At last, in 1772, only three years after this 
 advertisement, the single question of the legal- 
 
298 CHARLES SUMNER. 
 
 ity of Slavery was presented to Lord Mans- 
 field, on a writ of habeas corpus. A poor 
 negro, named Sommersett, brought to England 
 as a slave, became ill, and, with an inhumanity 
 disgraceful even to Slavery, was turned adrift 
 upon the world. Through the charity of an 
 estimable man, the eminent Abolitionist, Gran- 
 ville Sharp, he was restored to health, when 
 his unfeeling and avaricious master again 
 claimed him as bondman. The claim was re- 
 pelled. After elaborate and protracted dis- 
 cussion in Westminster Hall, marked by rarest 
 learning and ability, Lord Mansfield, with dis- 
 creditable reluctance, sullying his great judicial 
 name, but in trembling obedience to the genius 
 of the British Constitution, pronounced a de- 
 cree which made the early boast a practical 
 verity, and rendered Slavery forever impossible 
 in England. More than fourteen thousand 
 persons, at that time held as slaves, and breath- 
 ing English air, four times as many as are 
 now found in this national metropolis, stepped 
 forth in the happiness and dignity of free men. 
 With this guiding example I cannot despair. 
 The time will yet come when the boast of our 
 fathers will be made a practical verity also, and 
 Court or Congress, in the spirit of this British 
 
REPEAL OF FUGITIVE SLA VE LA W. 299 
 
 judgment, will proudly declare that nowhere 
 under the Constitution can man hold property 
 in man. For the Republic such a decree will 
 be the way of peace and safety. As Slavery is 
 banished from the national jurisdiction, it will 
 cease to vex our national politics. It may lin- 
 ger in the States as a local institution ; but it 
 will no longer engender national animosities, 
 when it no longer demands national support. 
 
 II. 
 
 From this general review of the relations of 
 the National Government to Slavery, I pass to 
 the consideration of THE TRUE NATURE OF 
 THE PROVISION FOR THE RENDITION OF FUGI- 
 TIVES FROM SERVICE, embracing an examina- 
 tion of this provision in the Constitution, and 
 especially of the recent Act of Congress in 
 pursuance thereof. As I begin this discussion, 
 let me bespeak anew your candor. Not in pre- 
 judice, but in the light of history and of reason, 
 we must consider this subject. The way will 
 then be easy and the conclusion certain. 
 
 Much error arises from the exaggerated im- 
 portance now attached to this provision, and 
 from assumptions with regard to its origin and 
 
3OO CHARLES SUMNER. 
 
 primitive character. It is often asserted that 
 it was suggested by some special difficulty, 
 which had become practically and extensively 
 felt, anterior to the Constitution. But this is 
 one of the myths or fables with which the sup- 
 porters of Slavery have surrounded their false 
 god. In the articles of Confederation, while 
 provision is made for the surrender of fugitive 
 criminals, nothing is said of fugitive slaves or 
 servants ; and there is no evidence in any 
 quarter, until after the National Convention, 
 of hardship or solicitude on this account. No 
 previous voice was heard to express desire 
 for any provision on the subject. The story to 
 the contrary is a modern fiction. 
 
 I put aside, as equally fabulous, the common 
 saying, that this provision was one of the 
 original compromises of the Constitution, and 
 an essential condition of Union. Though sanc- 
 tioned by eminent judicial opinions, it will be 
 found that this statement is hastily made, 
 without any support in the records of the Con- 
 vention, the only authentic evidence of the 
 compromises ; nor will it be easy to find any 
 authority for it in any contemporary document, 
 speech, published letter, or pamphlet of any 
 kind. It is true that there were compromises 
 
REPEAL OF FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 3OI 
 
 at the formation of the Constitution, which 
 were the subject of anxious debate ; but this 
 was not one of them. 
 
 There was a compromise between the small 
 and large States, by which equality was secured 
 to all the States in the Senate. 
 
 There was another compromise finally carried, 
 under threats from the South, on the motion of 
 a New England member, by which the Slave 
 States are allowed Representatives according 
 to the whole number of free persons and 
 "three fifths of all other persons," thus secur- 
 ing political power on account of their slaves, 
 in consideration that direct taxes should be ap- 
 portioned in the same way. Direct taxes have 
 been imposed at only four brief intervals. The 
 political power has been constant, and at this 
 moment sends twenty-one members to the 
 other House. 
 
 There was a third compromise, not to be 
 mentioned without shame. It was that hateful 
 bargain by which Congress was restrained until 
 1808 from the prohibition of the foreign Slave- 
 trade, thus securing, down to that period, tolera- 
 tion for crime. This was pertinaciously pressed 
 by the South, even to the extent of absolute 
 restriction on Congress. John Rutledge said : 
 
3O2 CHARLES SUMNER. 
 
 " If the Convention thinks that North Carolina, 
 South Carolina, and Georgia will ever agree to 
 the Plan (the National Constitution), unless 
 their right to import slaves be untouched, the 
 expectation is vain. The people of those States 
 will never be such fools as to give up so im- 
 portant an interest." Charles Pinckney said : 
 " South Carolina can never receive the Plan, 
 if it prohibits the slave-trade." Charles Cotes- 
 worth Pinckney " thought himself bound to 
 declare candidly, that he did not think South 
 Carolina would stop her importations of slaves 
 in any short time." The effrontery of the 
 slave-masters was matched by the sordidness 
 of the Eastern members, who yielded again. 
 Luther Martin, the eminent member of the 
 Convention, in his contemporary address to the 
 Legislature of Maryland, described the compro- 
 mise. " I found," he said, " The Eastern States, 
 notwithstanding their aversion to Slavery, were 
 very willing to indulge the Southern States at 
 least with a temporary liberty to prosecute the 
 slave-trade, provided the Southern States would 
 in their turn gratify them by laying no restric- 
 tion on navigation acts'' The bargain was 
 struck, and at this price the Southern States 
 gained the detestable indulgence. At a sub- 
 
REPEAL OF FUGITIVE SLA VE LA W. 303 
 
 sequent day Congress branded the slave-trade 
 as piracy, and thus, by solemn legislative act, 
 adjudged this compromise to be felonious and 
 wicked. 
 
 Such are the three chief original compromises 
 of the Constitution and essential conditions of 
 Union. The case of fugitives from service is 
 not of these. During the Convention it was 
 not in any way associated with these. Nor is 
 there any evidence from the records of this 
 body, that the provision on this subject was 
 regarded with any peculiar interest. As its 
 absence from the Articles of Confederation 
 had not been the occasion of solicitude or de- 
 sire, anterior to the National Convention, so it 
 did not enter into any of the original plans of 
 the Constitution. It was introduced tardily, 
 at a late period of the Convention, and adopted 
 with very little and most casual discussion. A 
 few facts show how utterly unfounded are recent 
 assumptions. 
 
 The National Convention was convoked to 
 meet at Philadelphia on the second Monday in 
 May, 1787. Several members appeared at this 
 time, but, a majority of the States not being 
 represented, those present adjourned from day 
 to day until the 25th, when the Convention was 
 
304 CHARLES SUMNER. 
 
 organized by the choice of George Washington 
 as President. On the 28th a few brief rules 
 and orders were adopted. On the next day, 
 they commenced their great work. 
 
 On the same day, Edmund Randolph, of 
 slaveholding Virginia, laid before the Conven- 
 tion a series of fifteen resolutions, containing 
 his plan for the establishment of a New National 
 Government. Here was no allusion to fugitives 
 slaves. 
 
 Also, on the same day, Charles Pinckney, of 
 slaveholding South Carolina, laid before the 
 Convention what was called "A Draft of a 
 Federal Government, to be agreed upon be- 
 tween the Free and Independent States of 
 America," an elaborate paper, marked by 
 considerable minuteness of detail. Here are 
 provisions, borrowed from the Articles of Con- 
 federation, securing to the citizens of each 
 State equal privileges, in the several States, 
 giving faith to the public records of the States, 
 and ordaining the surrender of fugitives from 
 justice. But this draft, though from the flam- 
 ing guardian of the slave interest, contained no 
 allusion to fugitive slaves. 
 
 In the course of the Convention other plans 
 were brought forward: on the i$th of June, a 
 
REPEAL OF FUGITIVE SLA VE LA W. 305 
 
 series of eleven propositions by Mr. Paterson, 
 of New Jersey, " so as to render the Federal 
 Constitution adequate to the exigencies of Gov- 
 ernment and the preservation of the Union " ; 
 on the 1 8th June, eleven propositions by Mr. 
 Hamilton, of New York, "containing his ideas 
 of a suitable plan of Government for the United 
 States" and on the igth June, Mr. Randolph's 
 resolutions, originally offered on the 2Qth May, 
 " as altered, amended, and agreed to in Com- 
 mittee of the Whole House." On the 26th 
 July, twenty-three resolutions, already adopted 
 on different days in the Convention, were re- 
 ferred to a " Committee of Detail," for reduction 
 to the form of a Constitution. On the 6th Au- 
 gust this Committee reported the finished draft 
 of a Constitution. And yet in all these resolu- 
 tions, plans, and drafts, seven in number, pro- 
 ceeding from eminent members and from able 
 committees, no allusion is made to fugitive 
 slaves. For three months the Convention was 
 in session, and not a word uttered on this 
 subject. 
 
 At last, on the 28th August, as the Conven- 
 tion was drawing to a close, on the considera- 
 tion of the article providing for the privileges 
 of citizens in different States, we meet the first 
 
 VOL. II 2O 
 
306 CHARLES SUMNER. 
 
 reference to this matter, in words worthy of 
 note. " General (Charles Cotesworth) Pinckney 
 was not satisfied with it. He SEEMED to wish 
 some provision should be included in favor of 
 property in slaves." But he made no proposition. 
 Unwilling to shock the Convention, and uncer- 
 tain in his own mind, he only seemed to wish 
 such a provision. In this vague expression of 
 a vague desire this idea first appeared. In this 
 modest, hesitating phrase is the germ of the 
 audacious, unhesitating Slave Act. Here is 
 the little vapor, which has since swollen, as in 
 the Arabian tale, to the power and dimensions 
 of a giant. The next article under discussion 
 provided for the surrender of fugitives from 
 justice. Mr. Butler and Mr. Charles Pinckney, 
 both from South Carolina, now moved openly 
 to require " fugitive slaves and servants to be 
 delivered up like criminals." Here was no dis- 
 guise. With Hamlet, it was now said in 
 spirit, 
 
 " Seems, Madam ! Nay it is. I know not 
 seems." 
 
 But the very boldness of the effort drew atten- 
 tion and opposition. Mr. Wilson, of Pennsyl- 
 vania, the learned jurist and excellent man, at 
 
REPEAL OF FUGITIVE SLA VE LA W. 3O/ 
 
 once objected : " This would oblige the Exec- 
 utive of the State to do it at the public ex- 
 pense." Mr. Sherman, of Connecticut, " saw 
 no more propriety in the public seizing and 
 surrendering a slave or servant than a horse." 
 Under the pressure of these objections, the 
 offensive proposition was withdrawn, never 
 more to be renewed. The article for the sur- 
 render of criminals was then unanimously 
 adopted. On the next day, 2Qth August, 
 profiting by the suggestions already made, Mr. 
 Butler moved a proposition, substantially like 
 that now found in the Constitution, for the 
 surrender, not of " fugitive slaves," as originally 
 proposed, but simply of " persons bound to 
 service or labor," which, without debate or 
 opposition of any kind, was unanimously 
 adopted. 7 
 
 Here, palpably, was no labor of compromise, 
 no adjustment of conflicting interest, nor 
 even any expression of solicitude. The clause 
 finally adopted was vague and faint as the 
 original suggestion. In its natural import it is 
 not applicable to slaves. If supposed by some 
 to be applicable, it is clear that it was supposed 
 by others to be inapplicable. It is now insisted 
 that the term "-persons bound to service" or 
 
308 CHARLES SUMNER. 
 
 " held to service" as expressed in the final 
 revision, is the equivalent or synonym for 
 " slaves" This interpretation is rebuked by an 
 incident to which reference has been already 
 made, but which will bear repetition. On the 
 1 3th September a little more than a fortnight 
 after the clause was adopted, and when, if 
 deemed to be of any significance, it could not 
 have been forgotten the very word " service," 
 came under debate, and received a fixed mean- 
 ing. It was unanimously adopted as a substi- 
 tute for " servitude " in another part of the 
 Constitution, for the reason that it expressed 
 " the obligations of free persons" while the 
 other expressed " the condition of slaves." In 
 the face of this authentic evidence, reported by 
 Mr. Madison, it is difficult to see how the term 
 " persons held to service " can be deemed to 
 express anything beyond the obligations of 
 free persons" Thus, in the light of calm in- 
 quiry, does this exaggerated clause lose its im- 
 portance. 
 
 The provision, showing itself thus tardily, 
 and so slightly regarded in the National Con- 
 vention, was neglected in much of the contem- 
 poraneous discussion before the people. In the 
 Conventions of South Carolina, North Carolina, 
 
REPEAL OF FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 309 
 
 and Virginia, it was commended as securing im- 
 portant rights, though on this point there was 
 difference of opinion. In the Virginia Conven- 
 tion, an eminent character, Mr. George Mason, 
 with others, expressly declared that there was 
 "no security of property coming within this 
 section." In the other Conventions it was 
 disregarded. Massachusetts, while exhibiting 
 peculiar sensitiveness at any responsibility for 
 slavery, seemed to view it with unconcern. 
 One of her leading statesmen, General Heath, 
 in the debates of the State Convention, strenu- 
 ously asserted, that, in ratifying the Constitu- 
 tion, the people of Massachusetts " would do 
 nothing to hold the blacks in slavery." " The 
 Federalist," in its classification of the powers 
 of Congress, describes and groups a large 
 number as " those which provide for the 
 harmony and proper intercourse among the 
 States," and therein speaks of the power over 
 public records, standing next in the Constitu- 
 tion to the provision concerning fugitives from 
 service ; but it fails to recognize the latter 
 among the means of promoting " harmony and 
 proper intercourse ; " nor does its triumvirate 
 of authors anywhere allude to the provision. 
 The indifference thus far attending this sub- 
 
3IO CHARLES SUMNER. 
 
 ect still continued. The earliest Act of Con- 
 gress, passed in 1793, drew little attention. It 
 was not suggested originally by any difficulty 
 or anxiety touching fugitives from service, nor 
 is there any contemporary record, in debate or 
 otherwise, showing that any special importance 
 was attached to its provisions in this regard. 
 The attention of Congress was directed to fugi- 
 tives from justice, and, with little deliberation, 
 it undertook, in the same bill, to provide for 
 both cases. In this accidental manner was 
 legislation on this subject first attempted. 8 
 
 There is no evidence that fugitives were 
 often seized under this Act. From a compe- 
 tent inquirer we learn that twenty-six years 
 elapsed before it was successfully enforced in 
 any Free State. It is certain, that, in a case 
 at Boston, towards the close of the last cen- 
 tury, illustrated by Josiah Quincy as counsel, 
 the crowd about the magistrate, at the examin- 
 ation, quietly and spontaneously opened a way 
 for the fugitive, and thus the Act failed to be 
 executed. It is also certain, that, in Vermont, 
 at the beginning of the century, a Judge of 
 the Supreme Court of the State, on application 
 for the surrender of an alleged slave, accom- 
 panied by documentary evidence, gloriously 
 
REPEAL OF FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. $11 
 
 refused compliance, unless the master could show 
 a Bill of Sale from the Almighty. Even these 
 cases passed without public comment. 
 
 In 1 80 1 the subject was introduced in the 
 House of Representatives by an effort for an- 
 other Act, which, on consideration, was re- 
 jected. At a later day, in 1817-18, though still 
 disregarded by the country, it seemed to excite 
 a short-lived interest in Congress. In the 
 House of Representatives, on motion of Mr. 
 Pindall, of Virginia, a committee was appointed 
 to inquire into the expediency of " providing 
 more effectually by law for reclaiming servants 
 and slaves escaping from one State into an- 
 other," and a bill reported by them to amend 
 the Act of 1793, after consideration for several 
 days in Committee of the Whole, was passed. 
 In the Senate, after much attention and warm 
 debate, it passed with amendments. But on 
 return to the House for adoption of the 
 amendments, it was dropped. This effort, 
 which, in the discussions of this subject, has 
 been thus far unnoticed, is chiefly remarkable 
 as the earliest recorded evidence of the unwar- 
 rantable assertion, now so common, that this 
 provision was originally of vital importance to 
 the peace and harmony of the country. 
 
312 CHARLES SUMNER. 
 
 At last, in 1850, we have another Act, passed 
 by both Houses of Congress, and approved by 
 the President, familiarly known as the Fugitive 
 Slave Bill. As I read this statute, I am filled 
 with painful emotions. The masterly subtlety 
 with which it is drawn might challenge admira- 
 tion, if exerted for a benevolent purpose ; but 
 in an age of sensibility and refinement, a ma- 
 chine of torture, however skilful and apt, can- 
 not be regarded without horror. Sir, in the 
 name of the Constitution, which it violates, of 
 my country, which it dishonors, of Humanity, 
 which it degrades, of Christianity, which it 
 offends, I arraign this enactment, and now hold 
 it up to the judgment of the Senate and the 
 world. Again, I shrink from no responsibility. 
 I may seem to stand alone ; but all the patri- 
 ots and martyrs of history, all the Fathers of 
 the Republic, are with me. Sir, there is no 
 attribute of God which does not take part 
 against this Act. 
 
 But I am to regard it now chiefly as an in- 
 fringement of the Constitution. Here its out- 
 rages, flagrant as manifold, assume the deepest 
 dye and broadest character only when we con- 
 sider that by its language it is not restricted to 
 any special race or class, to the African or to 
 
REPEAL OF FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 313 
 
 the person with African blood, but that any 
 inhabitant of the United States, of whatever 
 complexion or condition, may be its victim. 
 Without discrimination of color even, and in 
 violation of every presumption of freedom, the 
 Act surrenders all who may be claimed as 
 " owing service or labor " to the same tyran- 
 nical proceeding. If there be any whose sym- 
 pathies are not moved for the slave, who do 
 not cherish the rights of the humble African, 
 struggling for divine Freedom, as warmly as 
 the rights of the white man, let him consider 
 well that the rights of all are equally assailed. 
 " Nephew," said Algernon Sidney in prison, 
 on the night before his execution, " I value not 
 my own life a chip ; but what concerns me is, 
 that the law which takes away my life may 
 hang every one of you, whenever it is thought 
 convenient.'* 
 
 Whilst thus comprehensive in its provisions, 
 and applicable to all, there is no safeguard of 
 Human Freedom which the monster Act does 
 not set at nought. 
 
 It commits this great question than which 
 none is more sacred in the law not to a sol- 
 emn trial, but to summary proceedings. 
 
 It commits this great question, not to one 
 
3 14 CHARLES SUMNER. 
 
 of the high tribunals of the land, but to the 
 unaided judgment of a single petty magistrate. 
 
 It commits this great question to a magis- 
 trate appointed, not by the President with the 
 consent of the Senate, but by the Court, 
 holding office, not during good behavior, but 
 merely during the will of the Court, and re- 
 ceiving, not a regular salary, but fees according 
 to each individual case. 
 
 It authorizes judgment on ex parte evidence, 
 by affidavit, without the sanction of cross-ex- 
 amination. 
 
 It denies the writ of Habeas Corpus, ever 
 known as the palladium of the citizen. 
 
 Contrary to the declared purposes of the 
 framers of the Constitution, it sends the fugi- 
 tive back " at the public expense." 
 
 Adding meanness to violation of the Consti- 
 tution, it bribes the Commissioner by a double 
 stipend to pronounce against Freedom. If he 
 dooms a man to Slavery, the reward is ten dol- 
 lars ; but saving him to Freedom, his dole is 
 five. 
 
 The Constitution expressly secures the " free 
 exercise of religion " ; but this Act visits with 
 unrelenting penalties the faithful men and 
 women who render to the fugitive that coun- 
 
REPEAL OF FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 315 
 
 tenance, succor, and shelter which in their 
 conscience " religion " requires ; and thus is 
 practical religion directly assailed. Plain com- 
 mandments are broken ; and are we not told that 
 " Whosoever shall break one of these least com- 
 mandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be 
 called the least in the kingdom of Heaven " ? 
 
 As it is for the public weal that there should 
 be an end of suits, so by the consent of civil- 
 ized nations these must be instituted within 
 fixed limitations of time ; but this Act, exalting 
 Slavery above even this practical principle of 
 universal justice, ordains proceedings against 
 Freedom without any reference to the lapse of 
 time. 
 
 Glancing only at these points, and not stop- 
 ping for argument, vindication, or illustration, 
 I come at once upon two chief radical objec- 
 tions to this Act, identical in principle with 
 those triumphantly urged by our fathers against 
 the British Stamp Act ; first, that it is a usur- 
 pation by Congress of powers not granted by 
 the Constitution, and an infraction of rights 
 secured to the States; and, secondly, that it 
 takes away Trial by Jury in a question of Per- 
 sonal Liberty and a suit at Common Law. 
 Either of these objections, if sustained, strikes 
 
316 CHARLES SUMNER. 
 
 at the very root of the Act. That it is obnox- 
 ious to both is beyond doubt. 
 
 Here, at this stage, I encounter the difficulty, 
 that these objections are already foreclosed by 
 legislation of Congress and decisions of the 
 Supreme Court, that as early as 1793 Con- 
 gress assumed power over this subject by an 
 Act which failed to secure Trial by Jury, and 
 that the validity of this Act under the Consti- 
 tution has been affirmed by the Supreme Court. 
 On examination, this difficulty will disappear. 
 
 The Act of 1793 proceeded from a Congress 
 that had already recognized the United States 
 Bank, chartered by a previous Congress, which, 
 though sanctioned by the Supreme Court, has 
 been since in high quarters pronounced uncon- 
 stitutional. If it erred as to the Bank, it may 
 have erred also as to fugitives from service. 
 But the Act itself contains a capital error on 
 this very subject, so declared by the Supreme 
 Court, in pretending to vest a portion of the 
 judicial power of the Nation in State officers. 
 This error takes from the Act all authority as 
 an interpretation of the Constitution. I dis- 
 miss it. 
 
 The decisions of the Supreme Court are en- 
 titled to great consideration, and will not be 
 
REPEAL OF FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 3 1 7 
 
 mentioned by me except with respect. Among 
 the memories of my youth are happy days 
 when I sat at the feet of this tribunal, while 
 MARSHALL presided, with STORY by his side. 
 The pressure now proceeds from the case of 
 Prigg v. Pennsylvania (16 Peters, 539), where is 
 asserted the power of Congress. Without go- 
 ing into minute criticism of this judgment, or 
 considering the extent to which it is extra- 
 judicial, and therefore of no binding force, all 
 which has been done at the bar in one State, 
 and by an able court in another, but conced- 
 ing to it a certain degree of weight as a rule to 
 the judiciary on this particular point, still it 
 does not touch the grave question which springs 
 from the denial of Trial by Jury. This judg- 
 ment was pronounced by Mr. Justice Story. 
 From the interesting biography of the great 
 jurist, recently published by his son, we learn 
 that the question of Trial by Jury was not 
 considered as before the Court ; so that, in the 
 estimation of the learned judge himself, it was 
 still an open question. 9 
 
 * * * * * * # 
 
 (i). First of the power of Congress over this 
 subject. 
 
 The Constitution contains powers granted to 
 
318 CHARLES SUMNER. 
 
 Congress, compacts between the States, and 
 prohibitions addressed to the Nation and to the 
 States. A compact or prohibition may be ac- 
 companied by a power, but not necessarily, 
 for it is essentially distinct in nature. And 
 here the single question arises, Whether the 
 Constitution, by grant, general or special, con- 
 fers upon Congress any power to legislate on 
 the subject of fugitives from service. 
 
 * * # # * * # 
 The framers of the Constitution were wise 
 and careful, having a reason for what they did, 
 and understanding the language they employed. 
 They did not, after discussion, incorporate into 
 their work any superfluous provision ; nor did 
 they without design adopt the peculiar arrange- 
 ment in which it appears. Adding to the 
 record compact an express grant of power, 
 they testified not only their desire for such 
 power in Congress, but their conviction that 
 without such express grant it would not exist. 
 But if express grant was necessary in this case, 
 it was equally necessary in all the other cases. 
 Expressum facit cessare taciturn. Especially, 
 in view of its odious character, was it necessary 
 in the case of fugitives from service. Abstain- 
 ing from any such grant, and then grouping 
 
REPEAL OF FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 319 
 
 the bare compact with other similar compacts, 
 separate from every grant of power, they testi- 
 fied their purpose most significantly. Not only 
 do they decline all addition to the compact of 
 any such power, but, to render misapprehension 
 impossible, to make assurance doubly sure, to 
 exclude any contrary conclusion, they punctili- 
 ously arrange the clauses, on the principle of 
 noscitur a sociis, so as to distinguish all the 
 grants of power, but especially to make the 
 new grant of power, in the case of public 
 records, stand forth in the front by itself, 
 severed from the naked compacts with which 
 it was originally associated. 
 
 Thus the proceedings of the Convention show 
 that the founders understood the necessity of 
 powers in certain cases, and, on consideration, 
 jealously granted them. A closing example 
 will strengthen the argument. Congress is ex- 
 pressly empowered " to establish an uniform rule 
 of naturalization, and uniform laws on the sub- 
 ject of bankruptcies, throughout the United 
 States." Without this provision these two 
 subjects would have fallen within the control 
 of the States, leaving the nation powerless to 
 establish a uniform rule thereupon. Now, in- 
 stead of the existing compact on fugitives from 
 
320 CHARLES SUMNER. 
 
 service, it would have been easy, had any such 
 desire prevailed, to add this case to the clause 
 on naturalization and bankruptcies, and to em- 
 power Congress To ESTABLISH A UNIFORM 
 RULE FOR THE SURRENDER OF FUGITIVES 
 FROM SERVICE THROUGHOUT THE UNITED 
 STATES. Then, of course, whenever Congress 
 undertook to exercise the power, all State con- 
 trol of the subject would be superseded. The 
 National Government would have been consti- 
 stuted, like Nimrod, the mighty Hunter, with 
 power to gather the huntsmen, to halloo the 
 pack, and to direct the chase of men, ranging 
 at will, without regard to boundaries or juris- 
 dictions, throughout all the States. But no 
 person in the Convention, not one of the reck- 
 less partisans of slavery, was so audacious as 
 to make this proposition. Had it been dis- 
 tinctly made, it would have been as distinctly 
 denied. 
 
 The fact that the provision on this subject 
 was adopted unanimously, while showing the 
 little importance attached to it in the shape it 
 finally assumed, testifies also that it could not 
 have been regarded as a source of national power 
 for Slavery. It will be remembered that among 
 the members of the Convention were Gouver- 
 
REPEAL OF FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. $21 
 
 neur Morris, who had said that he " NEVER 
 would concur in upholding domestic Slavery," 
 Elbridge Gerry, who thought we " ought to 
 be careful NOT to give any sanction to it" 
 Roger Sherman, who " was OPPOSED to a tax 
 on slaves imported, because it implied they were 
 property" James Madison, who "thought it 
 WRONG to admit in the Constitution the idea 
 that there could be property in men," and 
 Benjamin Franklin, who likened American 
 slaveholders to Algerine corsairs. In the face 
 of these unequivocal judgments, it is absurd to 
 suppose that these eminent citizens consented 
 unanimously to any provision by which the 
 National Government, the creature of their 
 hands, dedicated to freedom, could become the 
 most offensive agent of Slavery. 
 
 Thus much for the evidence from the history 
 of the Convention. But the true principles of 
 our political system are in harmony with this 
 conclusion of history ; and here let me say a 
 word of State rights. 
 
 It was the purpose of our fathers to create a 
 National Government, and to endow it with 
 adequate powers. They had known the perils 
 of imbecility, discord, and confusion, protracted 
 through the uncertain days of the Confedera- 
 
322 CHARLES SUMNER. 
 
 tion, and they desired a government which 
 should be a true bond of union and an efficient 
 organ of national interests at home and abroad. 
 But while fashioning this agency, they fully 
 recognized the governments of the States. To 
 the nation were delegated high powers, essen- 
 tial to the national interests, but specific in 
 character and limited in number. To the 
 States and to the people were reserved the 
 powers, general in character and unlimited in 
 number, not delegated to the nation or pro- 
 hibited to the States. 
 
 The integrity of our political system depends 
 upon harmony in the operations of the Nation 
 and of the States. While the nation within its 
 wide orbit is supreme, the States move with 
 equal supremacy in their own. But, from the 
 necessity of the case, the supremacy of each 
 in its proper place excludes the other. The 
 Nation cannot exercise rights reserved to the 
 States, nor can the States interfere with the 
 powers of the nation. Any such action on 
 either side is a usurpation. These principles 
 were distinctly declared by Mr. Jefferson in 
 1798, in words often adopted since, and which 
 must find acceptance from all parties. 
 
REPEAL OF FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 323 
 
 I have already amply shown to-day that 
 Slavery is in no respect national that it is not 
 within the sphere of national activity, that it 
 has no " positive " support in the Constitution, 
 and that any interpretation inconsistent with 
 this principle would be abhorrent to the senti- 
 ments of its founders. Slavery is a local insti- 
 tution, peculiar to the States, and under the 
 guardianship of State rights. It is impossible, 
 without violence to the spirit and letter of the 
 Constitution, to claim for Congress any power 
 to legislate either for its abolition in the States 
 or its support anywhere. Non-intervention is 
 the rule prescribed to the nation. Regarding 
 the question in its more general aspects only, 
 and putting aside, for the moment, the perfect 
 evidence from the records of the convention, it 
 is palpable that there is no national fountain 
 out of which the existing Slave Act can possibly 
 spring. 
 
 But this Act is not only an unwarrantable 
 assumption of power by the nation, it is also 
 an infraction of rights reserved to the States. 
 Everywhere within their borders the States are 
 peculiar guardians of personal liberty. By jury 
 and habeas corpus to save the citizen harmless 
 against all assault is among their duties and 
 
324 CHARLES SUMNER. 
 
 rights. To his State the citizen, when oppressed, 
 may appeal ; nor should he find that appeal 
 denied. But this Act despoils him of rights, 
 and despoils his State of all power to protect 
 him. It subjects him to the wretched chance 
 of false oaths, forged papers, and facile com- 
 missioners, and takes from him every safeguard. 
 Now, if the slaveholder has a right to be secure 
 at home in the enjoyment of Slavery, so also 
 has the freeman of the North and every per- 
 son there is presumed to be a free man an 
 equal right to be secure at home in the enjoy- 
 ment of freedom. The same principle of State 
 rights by which Slavery is protected in the 
 slave States throws an impenetrable shield 
 over Freedom in the free States. And here, 
 let me say, is the only security for Slavery in 
 the slave States, as for Freedom in the free 
 States. In the present fatal overthrow of 
 State rights you teach a lesson which may 
 return to plague the teacher. Compelling the 
 National Government to stretch its Briarean 
 arms into the free States for the sake of Slavery, 
 you show openly how it may stretch these same 
 hundred giant arms into the slave States for 
 the sake of Freedom. This lesson was not 
 taught by our fathers. 
 
REPEAL OF FUGITIVE SLA VE LAW, 325 
 
 Here I end this branch of the question. 
 The true principles of our political system, the 
 history of the National Convention, the natural 
 interpretation of the Constitution, all teach 
 that this Act is a usurpation by Congress of 
 powers that do not belong to it, and an infrac- 
 tion of rights secured to the States. It is a 
 sword, whose handle is at the National Capital, 
 and whose point is everywhere in the States. 
 A weapon so terrible to personal liberty the 
 nation has no power to grasp. 
 
 (2). And now of the denial of Trial by Jury. 
 
 Admitting, for the moment, that Congress is 
 intrusted with power over this subject, which 
 truth disowns, still the Act is again radically un- 
 constitutional from its denial of Trial by Jury 
 in a question of personal liberty and a suit of 
 common law. Since on the one side there is a 
 claim of property, and on the other of liberty, 
 both property and liberty are involved in the 
 issue. To this claim on either side is attached 
 Trial by Jury. 
 
 To me, Sir, regarding this matter in the light 
 of the Common Law and in the blaze of free in- 
 stitutions, it has always seemed impossible to 
 arrive at any other conclusion. If the language 
 of the Constitution were open to doubt, which 
 
326 CHARLES SUMNER. 
 
 it is not, still all the presumptions of law, all 
 the leanings to Freedom, all the suggestions of 
 justice, plead angel-tongued for this right. No- 
 body doubts that Congress, if it legislates on 
 this matter, may allow a Trial by Jury. But if 
 it may, so overwhelming is the claim of justice, 
 it MUST. Beyond this, however, the question 
 is determined by the precise letter of the Con- 
 stitution. 
 
 Several expressions in the provision for the 
 surrender of fugitives from service show the 
 essential character of the proceedings. In the 
 first place, the person must be, not merely 
 charged, as in the case of fugitives from justice, 
 but actually held to service in the State which 
 he escaped. In the second place, he must "be 
 delivered up on claim of the party to whom 
 such service or labor may be due. These two 
 facts that he was held to service, and that his 
 service was due to his claimant are directly 
 placed in issue, and must be proved. Two 
 necessary incidents of the delivery may also be 
 observed. First, it is made in the State where 
 the fugitive is found ; and, secondly, it restores 
 to the claimant complete control over the per- 
 son of the fugitive. From these circumstances 
 it is evident that the proceedings cannot be re- 
 
REPEAL OF FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. Z 2 7 
 
 garded, in any just sense, as preliminary, or 
 ancillary to some future formal trial, but as 
 complete in themselves, final and conclusive. 
 
 These proceedings determine on the one side 
 the question of property, and on the other the 
 sacred question of personal liberty in its most 
 transcendent form, Liberty not merely for a 
 day or a year, but for life, and the Liberty of 
 generations that shall come after, so long as 
 Slavery endures. To these questions the Con- 
 stitution, by two specific provisions, attaches 
 Trial by Jury. One is the familiar clause, al- 
 ready adduced : " No person shall be deprived 
 of life, liberty, or property without due process 
 of law" that is, without due proceeding at 
 law, with Trial by Jury. Not stopping to dwell 
 on this, I press at once to the other provision, 
 which is still more express : " In suits at com- 
 mon law, where the value in controversy shall 
 exceed twenty dollars, the right of Trial by Jury 
 shall be preserved." This clause, which does 
 not appear in the Constitution as first adopted, 
 was suggested by the very spirit of freedom. At 
 the close of the National Convention, Elbridge 
 Gerry refused to sign the Constitution because, 
 among other things, it established " a tribunal 
 without juries, a star chamber as to civil cases." 
 
328 CHARLES SUMNER. 
 
 Many united in his opposition, and on the rec- 
 ommendation of the First Congress this addi- 
 tional safeguard was adopted as an amendment. 
 # # * * * * #is 
 
 Opposing this Act as doubly unconstitutional 
 from the want of power in Congress and from 
 the denial of trial by jury, I find myself again 
 encouraged by the example of our Revolution- 
 ary Fathers, in a case which is a landmark of 
 history. The parallel is important and com- 
 plete. In 1765, the British Parliament, by a 
 notorious statute, attempted to draw money 
 from the colonies through a stamp tax, while 
 the determination of certain questions of for- 
 feiture under the statute was delegated, not to 
 the Courts of Common Law, but to Courts of Ad- 
 miralty without a jury. The Stamp Act, now 
 execrated by all lovers of liberty, had this ex- 
 tent and no more. Its passage was the signal 
 for a general flame of opposition and indigna- 
 tion throughout the colonies. It was denounced 
 as contrary to the British Constitution, on two 
 principal grounds first, as a usurpation by 
 Parliament of powers not belonging to it, and 
 an infraction of rights secured to the colonies ; 
 and, secondly, as a denial of Trial by Jury in cer- 
 tain cases of property. 
 
REPEAL OF fUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 329 
 
 The public feeling was variously expressed. 
 At Boston, on the day the act was to take 
 effect, the shops were closed, the bells of the 
 churches tolled, and the flags of the ships hung 
 at half-mast. At Portsmouth, in New Hamp- 
 shire, the bells were tolled, and the friends of 
 liberty were summoned to hold themselves in 
 readiness for her funeral. At New York, the 
 obnoxious Act, headed " Folly of England and 
 Ruin of America," was contemptuously hawked 
 about the streets. Bodies of patriots were or- 
 ganized everywhere under the name of " Sons 
 of Liberty." The merchants, inspired then by 
 liberty, resolved to import no more goods from 
 England until the repeal of the Act. The 
 orators also spoke. James Otis with fiery 
 tongue appealed to Magna Charta. 
 
 * * # * * * # 
 
 Sir, regarding the Stamp Act candidly and 
 cautiously, free from animosities of the time, it 
 is impossible not to see that, though gravely 
 unconstitutional, it was at most an infringe- 
 ment of civil liberty only, not of personal 
 liberty. There was an unjust tax of a few 
 pence, with the chance of amercement by a 
 single judge without a jury ; but by no pro- 
 vision of this act was the personal liberty of 
 
330 CHARLES SUMNER. 
 
 any man assailed. No freeman could be seized 
 under it as a slave. Such an act, though justly 
 obnoxious to every lover of constitutional 
 Liberty, cannot be viewed with the feelings of 
 repugnance enkindled by a statute which assails 
 the personal liberty of every man, and under 
 which any freeman may be seized as a slave. 
 Sir, in placing the Stamp Act by the side of 
 the Slave Act, I do injustice to that emanation 
 of British tyranny. Both infringe important 
 rights : one, of property ; the other, the vital 
 right of all, which is to other rights as soul to 
 body, the right of a man to himself. Both are 
 condemned ; but their relative condemnation 
 must be measured by their relative characters. 
 As Freedom is more than property, as Man is 
 above the dollar that he owns, as heaven, to 
 which we all aspire, is higher than earth, where 
 every accumulation of wealth must ever remain, 
 so are the rights assailed by an American Con- 
 gress higher than those once assailed by the 
 British Parliament. And just in this degree 
 must history condemn the Slave Act more than 
 the Stamp Act. 
 
 Sir, I might here stop. It is enough, in this 
 place, and on this occasion, to show the uncon- 
 
REPEAL OF FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 331 
 
 stitutionality of this enactment. Your duty 
 commences at once. All legislation hostile to 
 the fundamental law of the land should be 
 repealed without delay. But the argument is 
 not yet exhausted. Even if this Act could claim 
 any validity or apology under the Constitution, 
 which it cannot, it lacks that essential support in 
 the Public Conscience of the States, where it is to 
 be enforced, which is the life of all law, and with- 
 out which any law must become a dead letter. 
 * # # * * * -x-16 
 
 With every attempt to administer the Slave 
 Act, it constantly becomes more revolting, par- 
 ticularly in its influence on the agents it enlists. 
 Pitch cannot be touched without defilement, 
 and all who lend themselves to this work seem 
 at once and unconsciously to lose the better 
 part of man. The spirit of the law passes into 
 them, as the devils entered the swine. Upstart 
 commissioners, mere mushrooms of courts, vie 
 and revie with each other. Now by indecent 
 speed, now by harshness of manner, now by 
 denial of evidence, now by crippling the de- 
 fense, and now by open, glaring wrong they 
 make the odious Act yet more odious. Clem- 
 ency, grace, and justice die in its presence. All 
 this is observed by the world. Not a case 
 
332 CHARLES SUMNER. 
 
 occurs which does not harrow the souls of good 
 men, and bring tears of sympathy to the eyes, 
 and those nobler tears which " patriots shed 
 o'er dying laws." 
 
 Sir, I shall speak frankly. If there be an ex- 
 ception to this feeling, it will be found chiefly 
 with a peculiar class. It is a sorry fact, that 
 the " mercantile interest," in unpardonable 
 selfishness, twice in English history, frowned 
 upon endeavors to suppress the atrocity of 
 Algerine Slavery, that it sought to baffle Wil- 
 berforce's great effort for the abolition of the 
 African slave-trade, and that, by a sordid com- 
 promise, at the formation of our Constitution, 
 it exempted the same detested, Heaven-defying 
 traffic from American judgment. And now 
 representatives of this " interest," forgetful that 
 Commerce is born of Freedom, join in hunting 
 the Slave. But the great heart of the people 
 recoils from this enactment. It palpitates for 
 the fugitive, and rejoices in his escape. Sir, I 
 am telling you facts. The literature of the age 
 is all on his side. Songs, more potent than 
 laws, are for him. Poets, with voices of mel- 
 ody, sing for Freedom. Who could tune for 
 Slavery ? They who make the permanent 
 opinion of the country, who mould our youth, 
 
REPEAL OF FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 333 
 
 whose words, dropped into the soul, are the 
 germs of character, supplicate for the Slave. 
 And now, Sir, behold a new and heavenly ally. 
 A woman, inspired by Christian genius, enters 
 the lists, like another Joan of Arc, and with 
 marvellous power sweeps the popular heart. 
 Now melting to tears, and now inspiring to 
 rage, her work everywhere touches the con- 
 science, and makes the Slave-Hunter more hate- 
 ful. In a brief period, nearly one hundred 
 thousand copies of Uncle Tom's Cabin have 
 been already circulated. But this extraordinary 
 and sudden success, surpassing all other in- 
 stances in the records of literature, cannot be 
 regarded as but the triumph of genius. Better 
 far, it is the testimony of the people, by an un- 
 precedented act, against the Fugitive Slave Bill. 
 These things I dwell upon as incentives and 
 tokens of an existing public sentiment, render- 
 ing this Act practically inoperative, except as 
 a tremendous engine of horror. Sir, the senti- 
 ment is just. Even in the lands of Slavery, the 
 slave-trader is loathed as an ignoble character, 
 from whom the countenance is turned away ; 
 and can the Slave-Hunter be more regarded, 
 while pursuing his prey in a land of Freedom ? 
 In early Europe, in barbarous days, while Sla- 
 
334 CHARLES SUMNER. 
 
 very prevailed, a Hunting Master was held in 
 aversion. Nor was this all. The fugitive was 
 welcomed in the cities, and protected against 
 pursuit. Sometimes vengeance awaited the 
 Hunter. Down to this day, at Revel, now a 
 Russian city, a sword is proudly preserved with 
 which a hunting Baron was beheaded, who, in 
 violation of the municipal rights of the place, 
 seized a fugitive slave. Hostile to this Act as 
 our public sentiment may be, it exhibits no 
 similar trophy. The State laws of Massachu- 
 setts have been violated in the seizure of a 
 fugitive slave ; but no sword, like that of Revel, 
 now hangs at Boston. 
 
 * * * # * * #i 
 And now, Sir, let us review the field over 
 which we have passed. We have seen that any 
 compromise, finally closing the discussion of Sla- 
 very under the Constitution, is tyrannical, ab- 
 surd, and impotent ; that, as Slavery can exist 
 only by virtue of positive law, and as it has no 
 such positive support in the Constitution, it can- 
 not exist within the national jurisdiction ; that 
 the Constitution nowhere recognizes property in 
 man, and that, according to its true interpre- 
 tation, Freedom and not Slavery is national, 
 while Slavery and not Freedom is sectional ; 
 
REPEAL OF FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 33$ 
 
 that in this spirit the National Government was 
 first organized under Washington, himself an 
 Abolitionist, surrounded by Abolitionists, while 
 the whole country, by its Church, its Colleges, 
 its Literature, and all its best voices, was united 
 against Slavery, and the national flag at that 
 time nowhere within the National Territory 
 covered a single slave ; still further, that the 
 National Government is a government of dele- 
 gated powers, and, as among these there is no 
 power to support Slavery, this institution can- 
 not be national, nor can Congress in any way 
 legislate in its behalf ; and, finally, that the es- 
 tablishment of this principle is the true way of 
 peace and safety for the Republic. Consider- 
 ing next the provision for the surrender of fugi- 
 tives from service, we have seen that it was not 
 one of the original compromises of the Consti- 
 tution ; that it was introduced tardily and with 
 hesitation, and adopted with little discussion, 
 while then and for a long period thereafter it 
 was regarded with comparative indifference ; 
 that the recent Slave Act, though many times 
 unconstitutional, is especially so on two grounds, 
 first, as a usurpation by Congress of powers 
 not granted by the Constitution, and an infrac- 
 tion of rights secured to the States, and, sec- 
 
CHARLES SUMNER. 
 
 ondly, as the denial of Trial by Jury, in a question 
 of personal liberty and a suit at Common Law ; 
 that its glaring unconstitutionality finds a pro- 
 totype in the British Stamp Act, which our 
 fathers refused to obey as unconstitutional on 
 two parallel grounds, first, because it was a 
 usurpation by Parliament of powers not be- 
 longing to it under the British Constitution, 
 and an infraction of rights belonging to the 
 Colonies, and, secondly, because it was the denial 
 of Trial by Jury in certain cases of property ; 
 that, as Liberty is far above property, so is the 
 outrage perpetrated by the American Congress 
 far above that perpetrated by the British Par- 
 liament ; and, finally, that the Slave Act has 
 not that support, in the public sentiment of the 
 States where it is to be executed, which is the 
 life of all law, and which prudence and the pre- 
 cept of Washington require. 
 
 Mr. President, I have occupied much time ; 
 but the great subject still stretches before us. 
 One other point yet remains, which I must not 
 leave untouched, and which justly belongs to 
 the close. The Slave Act violates the Consti- 
 tution, and shocks the Public Conscience. With 
 modesty, and yet with firmness, let me add, Sir, 
 
REPEAL OF FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 
 
 it offends against the Divine Law. No such 
 enactment is entitled to support. As the 
 throne of God is above every earthly throne, 
 so are his laws and statutes above all the laws 
 and statutes of man. 18 To question these is to 
 question God himself. But to assume that hu- 
 man laws are beyond question is to claim for 
 their fallible authors infallibility. To assume 
 that they are always in conformity with the 
 laws of God is presumptuously and impiously 
 to exalt man even to equality with God. 
 Clearly, human laws are not always in such 
 conformity ; nor can they ever be beyond ques- 
 tion from each individual. Where the conflict 
 is open, as if Congress should command the 
 perpetration of murder, the office of conscience 
 as final arbiter is undisputed. But in every 
 conflict the same queenly office is hers. By no 
 earthly power can she be dethroned. Each 
 person, after anxious examination, without 
 haste, without passion, solemnly for himself 
 must decide this great controversy. Any other 
 rule attributes infallibility to human laws, 
 places them beyond question, and degrades all 
 
 men to an unthinking, passive obedience. 
 # * * * * * * 
 
 The mandates of an earthly power are to 
 
 VOL. II. 22 
 
338 CHARLES SUMNER. 
 
 be discussed ; those of Heaven must at once 
 be performed ; nor should we suffer ourselves to 
 be drawn by any compact into opposition to 
 God. Such is the rule of morals. Such, also, by 
 the lips of judges and sages, is the proud declara- 
 tion of English law, whence our own is derived. 
 In this conviction, patriots have braved unjust 
 commands, and martyrs have died. 
 
 And now, sir, the rule is commended to us. 
 The good citizen, who sees before him the 
 shivering fugitive, guilty of no crime, pursued, 
 hunted down like a beast, while praying for 
 Christian help and deliverance, and then reads 
 the requirements of this Act, is filled with hor- 
 ror. Here is a despotic mandate " to aid and 
 assist in the prompt and efficient execution of 
 this law." Again let me speak frankly. Not 
 rashly would I set myself against any require- 
 ment of law. This grave responsibility I would 
 not lightly assume. But here the path of duty 
 is clear. By the Supreme Law, which com- 
 mands me to do no injustice, by the compre- 
 hensive Christian Law of Brotherhood, by the 
 Constitution, which I have sworn to support, I 
 AM BOUND TO DISOBEY THIS ACT. Never, in 
 any capacity, can I render voluntary aid in 
 its execution. Pains and penalties I will en- 
 
REPEAL OF FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 339 
 
 dure, but this great wrong, I will not do. 
 "Where I cannot obey actively, there I am 
 willing to lie down and to suffer what they shall 
 do unto me " ; such was the exclamation of 
 him to whom we are indebted for the Pilgrims 
 Progress while in prison for disobedience to 
 an earthly statute. Better suffer injustice than 
 do it. Better victim than instrument of wrong. 
 Better even the poor slave returned to bondage 
 than the wretched Commissioner. 
 
 There is, sir, an incident of history which 
 suggests a parallel, and affords a lesson of fidel- 
 ity. Under the triumphant exertions of that 
 Apostolic Jesuit, St. Francis Xavier, large num- 
 bers of Japanese, amounting to as many as two 
 hundred thousand, among them princes, gen- 
 erals, and the flower of the nobility, were 
 converted to Christianity. Afterwards, amidst 
 the frenzy of civil war, religious persecution- 
 arose, and the penalty of death was denounced 
 against all who refused to trample upon the 
 effigy of the Redeemer. This was the Pagan 
 law of a Pagan land. But the delighted histor- 
 ian records, that from the multitude of con- 
 verts scarcely one was guilty of this apostasy. 
 The law of man was set at naught. Imprison- 
 ment, torture, death, were preferred. Thus 
 
340 CHARLES SUMNER. 
 
 did this people refuse to trample on the painted 
 image. Sir, multitudes among us will not be 
 less steadfast in refusing to trample on the 
 living image of their Redeemer. 
 
 Finally, Sir, for the sake of peace and tran- 
 quility, cease to shock the Public Conscience ; 
 for the sake of the Constitution, cease to exer- 
 cise a power nowhere granted, and which vio- 
 lates inviolable rights expressly secured. Leave 
 this question where it was left by our fathers, 
 at the formation of our National Government, 
 in the absolute control of the States, the ap- 
 pointed guardians of Personal Liberty. Repeal 
 this enactment. Let its terrors no longer rage 
 through the land. Mindful of the lowly whom 
 it pursues, mindful of the good men perplexed 
 by its requirements, in the name of Chanty, in 
 the name of the Constitution, repeal this enact- 
 ment, totally and without delay. There is the 
 example of Washington, follow it. There also 
 are words of Oriental piety, most touching and 
 full of warning, which speak to all mankind, 
 and now especially to us : " Beware of the 
 groans of wounded souls, since the inward 
 sore will at length break out. Oppress not to 
 the utmost a single heart ; for a solitary sigh 
 has power to overturn a whole world." 40 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
NOTES. 
 
 RUFUS KING. 
 
 I. Rufus King was born in Scarborough, Maine, then a 
 part of Massachusetts, on March 24, 1755. He graduated 
 from Harvard College in 1777. While at college he earned a 
 reputation by his proficiency in the classics and by unusual 
 powers in oratory, to which he gave special attention. During 
 a portion of the Revolutionary War he served as an aide-de- 
 camp to General Sullivan in the expedition against the British 
 in Rhode Island. He was admitted to the bar in Newbury- 
 port, Massachusetts, in 1780. He won early and notable 
 success in the law, and in 1783 he was elected to the Massa- 
 chusetts Legislature. In this Legislature Mr. King showed 
 the national bent of his mind by urging that full authority be 
 granted to the general government to regulate the commerce 
 of the States and that the five-per-cent. impost be granted to 
 Congress. In 1784 he was elected by the Legislature of 
 Massachusetts to the Congress of the Confederation. In this 
 Congress he was an earnest advocate of the prohibition of 
 slavery in the territory and prospective States of the North- 
 west. Mr. King was a member of the Constitutional Conven- 
 tion of 1787, and in the discussions of that Convention he bore 
 an able and prominent part. Few men contributed more than 
 he to the making of the Constitution. He was on the com- 
 mittee to which was assigned the duty of making the final 
 draft of the Constitution. King was also in the Massachusetts 
 343 
 
344 NOTES. 
 
 Convention for the ratification of the Constitution, and it is 
 largely owing to his efforts there that Massachusetts was per- 
 suaded to ratify. He and Fisher Ames were to the Massachu- 
 setts Convention what Hamilton was to that in New York and 
 Madison and Marshall to that in Virginia. 
 
 In 1788 Mr. King moved to the city of New York. The 
 same year in which he came to New York he was elected to the 
 State Legislature, and in 1789 he " received the unexampled 
 welcome " of an election as one of New York's first Senators 
 in the United States Congress. King was a pronounced 
 Federalist in politics. Albert Gallatin having been elected a 
 Senator from Pennsylvania, and the question of his eligibility 
 having been raised, King made a notable speech in answer to 
 Burr in opposition to Gallatin's right to the seat. He was a 
 pronounced advocate of Jay's Treaty, and in 1794 he was 
 hissed and prevented from speaking while attempting, in 
 company with Hamilton, to address the public in defence of 
 the treaty. He and Hamilton then united in a series of papers 
 over the title of Camillus^ to explain and defend the treaty 
 before the public. Of these papers, the ones relating to com- 
 mercial affairs and maritime law were written by Mr. King. 
 In 1796 he was sent by Washington as our envoy to England, 
 where he remained for seven years, until 1803. From 1803 to 
 1813 he was in private life, but in the latter year he was again 
 elected as United States Senator from New York. He was 
 nominated for Governor by the New York Federalists in 1816, 
 and was voted for by his party electors for President against 
 Monroe the same year. He had also been the candidate of the 
 Federal party for Vice-President in 1804 and 1808. In the 
 Senate in 1818 he contributed materially to bring about the 
 passage of the Navigation Act of that year, and his speech on 
 that subject is a notable one. He was re-elected to the Senate 
 in 1819, closing his Senatorial course in 1825. He then ex- 
 pected to retire from public life, but was persuaded by Presi- 
 
RUFUS KING. 345 
 
 dent J. Q. Adams to undertake the mission to Great Britain. 
 He returned home in 1826 on account of ill health, and died 
 at Jamaica, L. I., April 29, 1827. 
 
 King's most notable public service in his late years was in 
 his opposition to the admission of Missouri as a slave State. 
 He was the recognized leader of the anti-slavery forces in this 
 struggle. His speeches were but meagrely reported in the 
 Annals of Congress, but the substance of the two which he 
 made in the Senate, as he afterwards gave them to the press, 
 contain the main arguments for his side of the controversy. 
 No one, in that day, could speak with greater authority and 
 more weight than he upon the Constitutional phases of the 
 question, and his speeches formed the basis for many of the 
 subsequent Congressional debates on slavery. 
 
 References : 
 
 Lalor's, Johnson's, and Appleton's Cyclopedias. 
 
 Moore's American Eloquence, vol. ii. 
 
 MacMaster's and Schouler's History of the United States. 
 
 Life and Correspondence of Rufus King. 
 
 The Annals of Congress. 
 
 Benton's Abridgment of Debates. 
 
 2. Historical Note on the Missouri Question. 
 
 The struggle over the admission of Missouri into the Union 
 was one of the most important in the long slavery controversy. 
 The Missouri struggle lasted for three years, from March, 
 1818, to March, 1821. The immediate result of that struggle 
 was the admission of Missouri without restriction as to slavery, 
 accompanied with the provision that slavery should be forever 
 excluded from all the Louisiana purchase north of 36 30' ; 
 the line which formed the southern boundary of Missouri. In 
 these few words is stated the substance of the Missouri Com- 
 promise, the basis of adjustment of one of the most violent 
 political struggles, the outcome of one of the ablest, most 
 
346 NOTES. 
 
 prolonged, and startling debates in the annals of the American 
 Congress. 
 
 In 1789 there were seven free States or States soon sure 
 to be free and six slave States. From 1789 to 1820 States 
 were admitted as follows : Vermont, 1791 ; Kentucky, 1792 ; 
 Tennessee, 1796 ; Ohio, 1803 ; Louisiana, 1812 ; Indiana, 
 1816 ; Mississippi, 1817; Illinois, 1818 ; Alabama, 1819. 
 Approximately, they had come in in pairs, slave States and 
 free. The slave States had gained one from the start, and 
 with the admission of Alabama the balance was struck, in 
 numbers n to n. It was in this equilibrium of political 
 power between the sections as represented in the United 
 States Senate that the struggle over Missouri arose. 
 
 The Missouri struggle consisted really of three struggles. 
 The first began in the isth Congress, March, 1818, when 
 Missouri, through Mr. Scott, her territorial delegate in Con- 
 gress, presented a petition for statehood. Nothing was done 
 with the enabling act for Missouri during that session. At 
 the next session, November 18, 1818, a memorial was again 
 presented from Missouri praying for admission. The memorial 
 was referred to the proper committee, and an enabling act 
 authorizing Missouri to form a State Constitution preparatory 
 to admission was reported to the Committee of the whole 
 House on February 13, 1819. On that day, Mr. James Tall- 
 madge, Jr., a representative from New York, offered an 
 amendment to the bill providing 
 
 1. Against the further introduction of slaves. 
 
 2. For gradual emancipation of the slaves already there. 
 
 " The motion of Tallmadge," says the Annals, " gave rise 
 to an interesting and pretty wide debate." After four days of 
 discussion the bill was passed with the Tallmadge amendment 
 by a sectional vote, 87 to 76. In the Senate the Tallmadge 
 amendment was stricken out and the bill returned to the 
 House. The House refused to concur in the Senate's action 
 
RUFUS KING. 347 
 
 and the bill was again sent to the Senate with a message of 
 non-concurrence. A message immediately came back from 
 the Senate that that body still adhered to its exclusion of 
 the Tallmadge amendment, and the House, on motion of 
 Mr. Taylor, of New York, again voted to adhere to its action, 
 and the Missouri bill was lost with the Fifteenth Congress, 
 in its closing hours in deadlock. Thus ended the first 
 struggle. 
 
 The second struggle began at the assembling of the next 
 Congress, December 6, 1819. During the summer and fall 
 the Missouri question was widely discussed throughout the 
 country by platform and press. State Legislatures passed 
 resolutions for and against the admission of Missouri. Mr. 
 Clay was the Speaker of the new Congress, as he had been of 
 the previous one. A new Missouri bill was presented the first 
 week of the session. It did not come up in the House for 
 discussion until January 24, 1820. On the 26th of January, 
 Mr. Taylor, of New York, offered an amendment to the bill 
 prohibiting slavery in the new State. The bill with this re- 
 strictive amendment was debated almost daily for nearly a 
 month, until February igth, when a bill came down from the 
 Senate to admit the State of Maine into the Union carrying 
 the whole Missouri bill, without restriction as to slavery, as a 
 " rider." 
 
 A word as to Maine. By an act of the State of Massachu- 
 setts the people of that part of Massachusetts known as Maine 
 were permitted to form themselves into an independent State. 
 Massachusetts thus freely consented to her own division, but 
 these proceedings were to be void unless Maine were admitted 
 to the Union by March 4, 1820. Accordingly, the people of 
 Maine formed a Constitution, organized a State government, 
 and petitioned Congress for admission to the Union. No en- 
 abling act was required for Maine, as her territory did not 
 belong to the United States. Her case was exactly parallel 
 
348 NOTES. 
 
 with that of Kentucky. All that was necessary was a simple 
 resolution " that from and after March 3, 1820, the State of 
 Maine is hereby declared to be one of the United States of 
 America," and to extend the United States jurisdiction over 
 her territory, and to assign her a fair proportion of representa- 
 tives. This would have been an easy matter but for the issue 
 over Missouri. The House had passed an ordinary Maine 
 bill January 3, 1820, without discussion. The Senate had 
 passed a similar bill to a second reading as early as December 
 22, 1819. When the House bill for Maine came to the Senate 
 the party stroke was conceived of combining the two bills, for 
 Maine and Missouri, into one, thus making the admission of 
 Maine dependent upon the unconditional admission of Mis- 
 souri. Henry Clay gave public approval to this scheme during 
 the discussion. The Maine bill with the Missouri rider was 
 discussed in the Senate from January 13 to February 16, 
 1820. It was during this period of the struggle that the 
 speeches of King and Pinkney were made. Amid the highest 
 excitement of the debate, Mr. Thomas, Senator from Illinois, 
 offered an amendment to the Missouri section of the bill in- 
 volving the terms of the final compromise, that Missouri 
 should be admitted as a slave State, but that slavery should be 
 prohibited in the rest of the Louisiana purchase north of 36 30'. 
 When the House received from the Senate the combination 
 bill, with the Thomas provision, it refused to agree to the log 
 rolling of Maine and Missouri into one bill. This was on 
 February 23d. A week later the Senate again sent a message 
 to the House insisting upon the combination. The House 
 again refused, and then Mr. Thomas, of Illinois, moved in 
 the Senate for a Committee of Conference. The House agreed 
 to the conference. The conferrees appointed were, Senators 
 Thomas, of Illinois, Pinkney, of Maryland, Barbour, of Vir- 
 ginia, and Representatives Holmes, of Massachusetts, Taylor, 
 of New York, Lowndes, of South Carolina, Parker, of Massa- 
 
RUFUS KING. 349 
 
 chusetts, and Kinsey, of New Jersey. The Conference Com- 
 mittee reported three distinct recommendations : 
 
 1 . The Senate should give up a combination of Missouri in 
 the same bill with Maine, and Maine should be admitted. 
 
 2. The House should abandon the attempt to restrict slavery 
 in Missouri. 
 
 3. Both Houses should agree to pass the Senate's Missouri 
 bill with the Thomas restriction excluding slavery north and 
 west of that State. 
 
 The House agreed to this arrangement only by a close vote, 
 90 to 87. The Missouri bill, enabling Missouri to form her 
 State Constitution without restriction as to slavery, passed both 
 Houses on March 2, 1820. The next day the Maine bill passed 
 the Senate. Thus Maine was admitted in time to preserve 
 her separate organization, and the people of Missouri were 
 authorized to form a State government and Constitution. 
 Thus ended the second struggle. 
 
 In reviewing the struggle in his mind the careful student 
 will distinguish here between the two totally distinct proposi- 
 tions in reference to restriction : (i) The original restriction of 
 Tallmadge, which Clay vehemently opposed, proposed the ex- 
 clusion of slavery from Missouri. This was restriction on a 
 State, and was opposed on that ground. (2) The final restric- 
 tion of Thomas proposed the exclusion of slavery from the 
 Territories of the United States north and west of Missouri. 
 This proposition was adopted ; but it did not emanate from 
 the original Missouri restrictionists, nor did it by any means 
 satisfy them. The final compromise measure was proposed 
 by a steadfast opponent of the original Tallmadge amendment. 
 " The current assumption, "says Greeley, " that this restriction 
 was proposed by Rufus King, of New York, and mainly sus- 
 tained by the antagonists of slavery, is wholly mistaken. The 
 truth, doubtless, is that it was suggested by the more moderate 
 opponents of restriction on Missouri as a means of overcoming 
 
350 NOTES. 
 
 the resistance of the House to slavery in Missouri. It was, in 
 effect, an offer from the milder opponents of slavery restriction 
 to the more moderate and flexible advocates of that restriction. 
 ' Let us have slavery in Missouri and we will unite with you 
 in excluding it from all the uninhabited territories north and 
 west of that State.' It was in substance an agreement be- 
 tween the North and the South to that effect, though the more 
 determined champions, whether of slavery extension or slavery 
 restriction, did not unite in it." * This statement of Greeley 
 is borne out by the record and the final vote. After the pro- 
 longed and bitter contest ; after a debate, then without a paral- 
 lel in the history of Congress, a debate equalled only in the 
 Constitutional Convention of 1787, which itself had settled the 
 slavery question by compromises ; facing bitter prophecies of 
 disunion as an alternative ; with earnest and impassioned ap- 
 peals for peace and compromise still resounding in their ears, 
 eighty-seven original restrictions still held out for restriction 
 on Missouri. They would not consent to a single other slave 
 State in the American Union, and restriction was finally 
 abandoned only by a majority of three votes. Slavery was al- 
 lowed in Missouri, and restriction was beaten only by the plan 
 of proffering instead an exclusion of slavery from all the then 
 Federal territory west and north of that State. Without this 
 compromise, or its equivalent, the Northern votes needed to 
 pass the bill could not have been obtained, f 
 
 The third struggle over Missouri, though the most animated 
 and bitter of all, arose over what is, historically, a minor mat- 
 ter. A Missouri Convention adopted a Constitution for the 
 new State July 19, 1820. In their displeasure at the delay 
 imposed upom them, and with a feeling that they should be 
 allowed to settle the slavery question for themselves, the people 
 
 * Political Text Book, 1860, p. 63. 
 f Greeley, Political Text Book, 1860. 
 
RUFUS KING. 351 
 
 of Missouri inserted a clause in their Constitution requiring 
 the State Legislature to prevent free negroes and mulattoes 
 from coming into that State. When this Constitution was 
 submitted to Congress November 20, 1820, the anti-slavery 
 men refused to vote for Missouri's admission under it, on the 
 ground that the objectionable clause was in violation of the 
 United States Constitution, which declares that "the citizens 
 of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immu- 
 nities of citizens of the several States. " 
 
 In speaking of the objectionable clause in Missouri's Con- 
 stitution, Benton says : ' ' This clause was laid hold of in Con- 
 gress to resist the admission of the State ; but the real point 
 of objection was the slavery clause and the existence of slavery 
 in the State." * Whether or not this was used as a mere pre- 
 text by the anti-slavery men to keep Missouri out while she 
 tolerated slavery, it is certain that the refusal to admit her 
 under the Constitution which she had prepared led to a more 
 heated and acrimonious debate than any that had preceded. 
 The struggle lasted through the winter of 1820-21. The 
 South charged bad faith upon the North. Maine had been 
 admitted and restriction had been applied to all the Louisiana 
 territory outside of Missouri. Missouri's admission on her 
 own terms was the price agreed to for this exclusion of slavery 
 and the admission of Maine. The price should now be paid. 
 If not, the compromise and settlement of the previous spring 
 would have to be undone, as far as possible. The admission 
 of Maine could not be undone. But if the Northern repre- 
 sentatives now refused to admit Missouri they would be as the 
 receivers of stolen goods. But the Northern members per- 
 sistently refused to vote for Missouri's admission until it was 
 agreed " that the objectionable clause of her Constitution 
 should never be construed to authorize the passage of any 
 
 * Thirty Years 1 View, vol. i., pp. 8 and 9. 
 
352 NOTES. 
 
 laws, and that no laws should ever be passed, by which any 
 citizen of either of the States of the Union shall be excluded 
 from the enjoyment of any of the privileges and immunities 
 to which such citizen is entitled under the Constitution of the 
 United States ; that the Legislature of said State, by a solemn 
 public act, shall declare the assent of said State to the said 
 fundamental condition." Upon the transmission of this act to 
 the chief executive, the President was to proclaim the admis- 
 sion of Missouri. 
 
 "With this the struggle ended and the long controversy over 
 Missouri passed into history. 
 
 Taken in connection with its subsequent repeal in 1854, the 
 struggle has a particularly significant feature. It was not a con- 
 test over the power of Congress to prohibit slavery in the Ter- 
 ritories. The Southern contention was, chiefly, that Congress 
 had no power nor right to impose conditions upon an incoming 
 State. Though the struggle lasted more than three years, the 
 final proposition closing the controversy, which prohibited 
 slavery in almost all the then Federal territory, was debated 
 but a few hours. Very few slavery extensionists questioned 
 the power of Congress to prevent the spread of slavery into the 
 Territories. Wirt, Crawford, and Calhoun, Southern members 
 of Monroe's Cabinet, all agreed that Congress possessed such 
 power. But John Quincy Adams, a Northern, anti-slavery 
 man, who was also a member of Monroe's Cabinet, while hold- 
 ing the same position on the territorial question, believed that 
 it was unconstitutional to impose conditions upon a State. In 
 1854, when it was proposed, by the Kansas- Nebraska bill, to 
 repeal the Missouri Compromise, the question of the prohi- 
 bition of slavery in the territories was primary and dominant, 
 but in 1820, when the territorial restriction was imposed, that 
 question was secondary and incidental. 
 
 See Annals of Congress. 
 
 Von Hoist's United States Const. History. 
 
RUFUS KING. 353 
 
 Schouler's United States History. 
 
 MacMaster's United States History. 
 
 Woodburn's Historical Significance of the Missouri Com- 
 promise, in the Papers of the American Historical Associa- 
 tion, 1893. 
 
 3. Maryland and New Jersey made special objections to the 
 ratification of the Articles of Confederation on account of the 
 Western lands, Maryland persistently refusing to ratify until 
 the cession of those lands to the general government was 
 guaranteed by the claimant States. Maryland feared that Vir- 
 ginia, by the sale of her Western lands, would be able to lower 
 her taxes and thus offer special attractions to new settlers and 
 citizens ; or that a tributary State subject to the influence and 
 control of Virginia might be erected in the Northwest Terri- 
 tory. In her paper of May 21, 1779, setting forth her objec- 
 tions to the Articles of Confederation and her refusal to ratify 
 until cessions were made of the Western lands, Maryland said : 
 4< We are convinced that policy and justice require that a 
 country unsettled at the commencement of this war, claimed 
 by the British Crown and ceded to it by the Treaty of Paris, 
 1763, if wrested from the common enemy by the blood and 
 treasure of the thirteen States, should be considered as a com- 
 mon property, subject to be parcelled out by Congress into 
 free, convenient, and independent governments in such man- 
 ner and at such time as the wisdom of that assembly shall 
 hereafter direct." 
 
 In 1780, in order to induce the claimant States to make the 
 cession of their lands, Congress passed the following resolu- 
 tion, which has ever since been the basis of our national policy 
 in the erection of new States : 
 
 Resolved, That the unappropriated lands that may be ceded 
 or relinquished to the United States by any particular State, 
 pursuant to the recommendation of Congress of the 6th day of 
 
 VOL. II. 23 
 
354 NOTES. 
 
 September last, shall be disposed of for the common benefit of 
 the United States, and be settled and formed into distinct re- 
 publican States, which shall become members of the federal 
 union, and have the same rights of sovereignty and freedom 
 and independence as the other States. 
 
 See Elliot's Debates, vol. i. 
 
 H. B. Adams' Maryland's Service in the Land Cessions, 
 Johns Hopkins University Studies. 
 
 Schouler's United States History, vol. i. 
 
 4. It was in 1819, during the discussions on the Missouri 
 bill that the bill organizing Arkansas as a separate Territory 
 was passed. An attempt was made led by Taylor of New 
 York to attach to the bill a clause prohibiting slavery in the 
 Arkansas Territory. " This motion, says the Annals, " gave 
 rise to a wide and long continued debate, covering part of the 
 ground previously occupied on this subject, but differing in 
 part, as the proposition for Arkansas was to impose a condition 
 on a Territorial government instead of, as in the former case, 
 to enjoin the adoption of the prohibitive principle in the Con- 
 stitution of a State." 
 
 This distinction is important in view of the fact that the 
 chief argument against restriction on Missouri was based on 
 the sovereignty and equality of the States. (See Pinkney's 
 argument.) The case of Arkansas presented the plain, unin- 
 cumbered question of the right of Congress to prohibit slavery 
 in the Territories. Very few persons in 1820 denied the power 
 of Congress to do this. Slavery restriction on Arkansas failed 
 chiefly because of complication with the Missouri question. 
 
 See Historical Significance of the Missouri Compromise, 
 American Historical Association Papers for 1893. 
 
 5. The omission contains but a brief remark to the effect 
 that it was the situation and the habits of the people in New 
 Orleans which prevented the imposition of still another con- 
 
RUFUS KING. 355 
 
 dition upon Louisiana. The conditions which were imposed 
 indicated the power of Congress to exclude slavery from the 
 new State in 1812. The omission of the condition was within 
 the discretion of Congress. 
 
 6. This language is from the Treaty by which we secured 
 Louisiana in 1803. 
 
 7. King here calls attention to the fact that the last part of 
 the clause quoted from the Louisiana Treaty is but the usual 
 formula in the transference of territory. He proceeds to give 
 a special examination to the word ** property " to show that a 
 guaranty to slave ownership was not stipulated. 
 
 8. In this omission Mr. King refers to the precedent which 
 influenced the Constitutional Convention of 178710 fix upon 
 the three-fifths rule of representation. By the Articles of Con- 
 federation the States were to pay into the common treasury in 
 proportion to the value of their lands, houses, and improve- 
 ments. This was not satisfactory, and in 1783, in the 5 per 
 cent, impost act of that year, it was agreed by Congress that 
 taxes should be apportioned among the States in proportion to 
 the population, counting three fifths bf the slaves. All the 
 States did not consent to this, and the project fell through. 
 But when the Convention came to the question of representa- 
 tion in 1787, since it had been a principle of the Revolution 
 that representation and taxation should go together, this act of 
 Congress of 1783 was looked to as a pertinent and weighty 
 precedent. King refers to it to show its influence in settling 
 the question of representation in 1787. The question was 
 then unavoidably complicated with other matters ; but in 1820, 
 in the case of Missouri v the question of slave representation 
 assumes the phase of an original question. 
 
 9. King here discusses the evils of slavery, its restraints 
 upon the strength, industry, and the tax-paying capacity of a 
 
356 NOTES. 
 
 State ; and he urged that whether slavery was to extend to the 
 prospective States in the South and West depended on 
 whether it was permitted in Missouri. Security both against 
 domestic violence and an exposed frontier depended on the 
 extension of free States in the West. 
 
 10. This argument was made prominent by those who 
 advocated the admission of Missouri as a slave State. The 
 evils of slavery were to be " diluted." With the slaves thus 
 dispersed, their condition would be bettered ; their numbers 
 would be the same, and their health and comfort would be 
 increased. Jefferson and Clay both made this plea. King 
 effectually refutes it. 
 
 See Jefferson's Works, vol. vii., p. 194. 
 
 11. On the other hand King shows that the increase of free 
 States makes for the amelioration of the slaves and promotes 
 the spirit of emancipation. He refers, also, to the growing 
 desire to benefit the free colored people by colonizing them. 
 In this connection it is interesting to notice a proposition of 
 King's made in the Senate subsequent to the time of this 
 speech, that after the public debts were paid the proceeds from 
 the sale of public lands should be converted into a fund to 
 provide for the colonization and emancipation of the blacks. 
 
 12. This speech of King's is not reported in the Annals. 
 The author furnished it from notes and memory to Niles' 
 Register "substantially as he made it." See Niles, vol. xvii., 
 p. 215 (1819). 
 
 King did not favor the Missouri Compromise as finally 
 agreed upon. He was not one of the moderate opponents of 
 slavery extension, and was therefore hot willing to consent to 
 Missouri's coming in as a slave. State even for the considera- 
 tion offered. He was, however, not an abolitionist, as this 
 term came to be understood in connection with Garrison and 
 
WILLIAM PINKNEY. 357 
 
 Phillips. He was not an agitator, seeking to abolish slavery 
 within the States, or to disturb the relations of the States to 
 one another. In a letter which forms the preface to these 
 speeches as published in 1819 he says : 
 
 " I am particularly anxious not to be misunderstood on this 
 subject, never having thought myself at liberty to encourage, 
 or to assent to, any measure that would affect the security of 
 property in slaves, or tend to disturb the political adjustment 
 which the Constitution has established respecting them ; I de- 
 sire to be considered as still adhering to this reserve ; and 
 that the observations should be construed to refer, and to be 
 confined, to the prohibition of slavery in the new States, to be 
 formed beyond the original limits of the United States, a pro- 
 hibition which, in my judgment, Congress have the power to 
 establish, and the omission of which may, as I fear, be pro- 
 ductive of most serious consequences." 
 
 King may fairly be said to be the anti-slavery statesman of 
 the Missouri conflict. His attitude toward slavery in 1820 
 may be compared to that of Seward in 1850-60. Neither 
 statesman disregarded the moral and social evils of slavery, 
 but that which they particularly emphasized was the dispro- 
 portion in political power which the slave system gave to the 
 Slave States of the Union, new and old, and the consequent 
 control which this gave over our National policy. It was, 
 after all, resistance to this complete control which became the 
 basis for the formation of the Republican party in 1854-6. 
 
 WILLIAM PINKNEY. 
 
 I. William Pinkney was born at Annapolis, Md., March 17, 
 1764. The South Carolina Pinckneys, though they spell their 
 name differently, are a branch of the same family. William 
 Pinkney 's father was an American Tory during the Revolu- 
 
358 NOTES, 
 
 tion, and was dispossessed of his property by confiscation ; 
 and this caused young Pinkney to relinquish his studies at an 
 early age. He himself was a patriotic advocate of the Ameri- 
 can cause. He studied law, and was admitted to the bar in 
 1786. He had at first pursued the study of medicine, but 
 soon abandoned it as unsuited to his taste. He was a mem- 
 ber, in 1788, of the Maryland Convention for the ratification 
 of the Constitution. From 1788 to 1792 he was a member of 
 the Maryland House of Delegates. In 1796 he became one 
 of the representatives of the United States on the Commis- 
 sions provided by Jay's Treaty for the adjustment of claims 
 growing out of English spoliations on our commerce. In 
 1805, upon his return to this country, he became Attorney 
 General of Maryland. In 1806 he was associated with Mr. 
 Monroe on a Mission to England, in our attempt to secure a 
 settlement of commercial differences. The Treaty agreed to 
 by Monroe and Pinkney left unsettled the question of impress- 
 ment and search, and it was not submitted to the Senate by 
 Jefferson. Monroe soon retired from London, and Pinkney 
 was our sole representative there until 1811. During the War 
 of 1812 Mr. Pinkney warmly supported the policy of the 
 administration. He became the commander of a volunteer 
 corps, and was severely wounded at Bladensburg. He was 
 for a while, in 1811, a member of the State Senate of Mary- 
 land, and, from 1812-14, was Attorney General of the United 
 States by appointment of President Madison. He resigned 
 this office when Congress required, by law, that the Cabinet 
 officers should reside at the seat of government. Pinkney's 
 private practice was too lucrative to sacrifice. In 1815 Pink- 
 ney was elected to Congress, and in the following year he was 
 sent abroad on a double mission, as Minister to Russia and as 
 special envoy to Naples. The latter mission was for the pur- 
 pose of recovering indemnification for seizures and confisca- 
 tions of the Neapolitan government in 1809, during the reign 
 
WILLIAM PINKNEY. 359 
 
 of Murat. Naples seems not to have recognized the justice of 
 these claims. Pinkney remained in Russia until 1818. He 
 took his seat in the United States Senate in 1820. The 
 speech on the Missouri bill was his most notable effort during 
 his senatorial career. He died after a service of two years, on 
 February 25, 1822. 
 
 Another of Pinkney's most celebrated speeches was his argu- 
 ment before the Supreme Court in the case of the Nereide, ID 
 1815. 
 
 References : 
 
 Moore's American Eloquence, vol. ii. 
 Wheaton's Life of Pinkney. 
 Perry's Sketches of American Statesmen. 
 Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography. 
 Life of Pinkney, by Rev. William Pinkney. 
 The standard Cyclopaedias. 
 
 2. See Note 2 on King's Speech, pp. 345-352. 
 
 3. He continues in general introductory remarks. 
 
 4. He indulges in a eulogy on the Union and expresses his 
 belief in its perpetuity. 
 
 5. The Vice-President, Mr. Daniel D. Tompkins. 
 
 6. " Whose it is to give, it is his to deny." 
 
 7. In this highly rhetorical language Pinkney indicates one 
 of the significant issues at stake in the controversy : " Has 
 Congress the right to impose conditions upon a State ? " No 
 one now questions this right, and the extent to which it is 
 exercised now is very much greater than it was thought of in 
 the early days of the Republic. The early admission of 
 States was without an enabling act ; in the case of Vermont 
 and Kentucky, a resolution merely consented to the admission 
 
360 NOTES. 
 
 of the new State. Now we usually have an elaborate law 
 undertaking to limit the power of the people over their State 
 Constitution, and, as in the case of Utah, the conditions have 
 extended so far as to deny the franchise to all persons of a 
 certain religious faith and practice. And a recent writer has 
 gone so far, in discussing the inequality of representation in 
 the United States Senate, as to propose that new States should 
 hereafter be required to submit to the condition of being satis- 
 fied with one Senator in the upper house of Congress until its 
 population should reach 500,000. See the Political Science 
 Quarterly, June, 1895. There is quite a difference of opinion 
 as to whether the conditions imposed by the enabling act are 
 binding after the admission of the State. See King's Speech, 
 p. 33, and The Historical Significance of the Missouri Com- 
 promise, Papers of the American Historical Association, 1893, 
 P- 295. 
 
 8. The orator here indulges in a brief strain of moralizing 
 and generalization, that encroachments are always apt to 
 come in the garb of humanity and piety. 
 
 9. " Medicine to it," a use of the word which is rare if not 
 obsolete now. 
 
 10. He speaks to the plea that this discretion will not be 
 abused. Unlimited, irresponsible power is always perilous. No 
 one can foretell what changes and abuses may arise if once it 
 is conceded that such power may be exercised. 
 
 11. This argument is based on the well-known " compact " 
 view as to the nature of the Union. It agrees with the view 
 expressed by Josiah Quincy in his speech on the admission of 
 Louisiana. See vol. i., of this series. The same argument 
 on " the Missouri questions " appears to have been made by 
 Charles Pinckney of South Carolina. See the extract from 
 Von Hoist, Note 20. 
 
WILLIAM PINKNEY. 361 
 
 12. The omitted passage considers whether, conceding that 
 Congress may admit or reject at discretion, it may impose 
 conditions, whether Congress could impose a condition which 
 would change the character of the Federal compact. 
 
 13. In this omission Pinkney urges the argument that the 
 conditions would not bind the State after its admission. " No 
 Territory, in order to become a State, can alienate or sur- 
 render any portion of its sovereignty." 
 
 14. He speaks of the ancient origins of slavery and answers 
 King's appeal to Greek and Roman law and to Magna Charta 
 and English precedents; he finds "other long sanctioned 
 establishments and unquestioned rights with which fraud and 
 violence may claim a fearful connection." The South is not 
 responsible for its slavery. 
 
 15. He enters into a discussion of the nature of sovereignty, 
 and of the sovereign powers which had been surrendered by 
 the States. 
 
 16. He makes a distinction between the form of a new 
 State government and the laws of that government respecting 
 slavery. 
 
 17. The omission contains remarks upon the suffrage for 
 women as an essential in the definition of a republican State. 
 His argument is that abstract definitions cannot be of great 
 weight in the discussion. 
 
 1 8. Pinkney argues at some length here that the word 
 " migration" in this clause does not apply to slaves and their 
 movement from State to State. 
 
 19. Senator Burrill. 
 
 20. " We must do the South the justice to admit that in 
 this struggle over constitutional questions it did not indulge 
 
362 NOTES. 
 
 in the verbal quibbling which became more and more the rule 
 in such debates. It placed itself openly, and without any du- 
 plicity, on the broadest basis upon which it could take posi- 
 tion. It denied to Congress the least shadow of right to make 
 the admission of a Territory as a State of the Union dependent 
 upon any conditions whatever. This view was not based 
 upon certain clauses of the Constitution, but on the nature of 
 the Union that is on state sovereignty. 
 
 "On this basis the whole argument for the general, as well 
 as the specific, cases can be condensed into four short sen- 
 tences : The federal government has only the powers granted 
 it by the sovereign States ; newly admitted States become 
 members of the Union with equal rights ; no other grants of 
 power can therefore be demanded from them than those volun- 
 tarily made by the thirteen original States, and exactly stipu- 
 lated in the Constitution ; no one affirms that the thirteen 
 original States gave up the right to decide whether slavery 
 should be permitted or forbidden within their boundaries." 
 Von Hoist's Constitutional History of the U. S., vol. i., pp. 
 
 364, 365. 
 
 " From the nature of the Union, then, an argument was 
 drawn which the reasons advanced in behalf of the limitation 
 shook, but could not overthrow. Charles Pinckney affirmed 
 with great keenness that the Constitution authorized the ad- 
 mission of new States ' into this Union,' that is, into the Union 
 as it then was. He went on to say that it was an undeniable 
 fact that the rights of the thirteen original States under the 
 Constitution had been absolutely equal. No one will deny 
 that the Constitution could never have come into being if this 
 had not been the case. It is therefore no longer this, but a 
 substantially different, Union, if the members of it are to have 
 different rights. That the thirteen original States had and 
 have to-day the right to forbid or allow slavery, will not be 
 
WILLIAM PINKNEY. 363 
 
 questioned. If this right is taken away from newly-admitted 
 States, then the Union evidently consists no longer of equal 
 members. But if Congress has the power to deprive newly- 
 admitted States, of a substantial right belonging to the 
 original States, it can do the same thing with other rights. No 
 boundary can be drawn, if the principle is once admitted." 
 Von Hoist's Constitutional History of the U. S. t vol. i., pp. 
 368, 369. 
 
 "But the two great speeches which stood out before all 
 others, and were regarded as masterpieces of their kind, were 
 delivered, the one in defence of slavery and the South, by 
 William Pinkney, of Maryland, and the other on behalf of 
 freedom and the North, by Rufus King, of New York." 
 MacMaster's U. S. History, vol. iv., p. 587. 
 
 " The most eloquent and distinguished man of his day in 
 the United States, if we may credit his contemporaries, was 
 Mr. Pinkney, of Maryland. His fame has descended to us in 
 its fulness of glory as an orator, statesman, and advocate. 
 
 " He was, at the time of his sudden and premature death, a 
 member of the United States Senate, and admitted to be there 
 unrivalled in the power and beauty of his forensic efforts. But 
 he spoke rarely in that body, only on some important occasion 
 or question, and then only after the most laborious and thor- 
 ough preparation, not merely in regard to the arguments and 
 illustrations, but in the general construction of his speech, and 
 especially in the preparation of those passages, including the 
 peroration, which were intended to electrify his audience. 
 
 " That Mr. Pinkney ranked as first at the bar of the Su- 
 preme Court, composed of such distinguished lawyers as David 
 B. Ogden, John Wells, Josiah Ogden Hoffman, and Thomas 
 Addis Emmet, of New York, Daniel Webster, of Massachu- 
 setts, Chapman Johnson, of Virginia, William Wirt and Gen- 
 eral Walter Jones, of Washington, and others of similar 
 calibre, is sufficient evidence of his great ability as a jurist 
 
364 NOTES. 
 
 and his extraordinary powers as a speaker. His arguments 
 before that tribunal where sat a Story, a Johnson, a Living- 
 ston, and a Washington, presided over by a Marshall, were 
 learned, logical, compact, and strong ; but, not content with 
 strength and solidity, he took infinite pains to make them 
 attractive and more effective by the more elaborate orna- 
 mentation. He well knew the effect of glowing passages of 
 eloquence, even in a solid legal argument, diamonds set in 
 gold, upon a promiscuous, or even a select, intelligent, and 
 refined audience. Nor did he undervalue those echoes of ad- 
 miration which his electric oratory sometimes, indeed, almost 
 invariably, called forth ; they were delicious music to his ear. 
 
 "It is related of Mr. Pinkney that he was very desirous 
 that the splendid passages in his speeches, which he took so 
 much pains to prepare, should be thought to be the impromtu 
 inspirations of his genius, and not the studied productions of 
 midnight toil ; and that to give the appearance of this, he 
 would sometimes resort to the ruse, on the morning of the 
 day he was to speak in the Senate or Supreme Court, of 
 mounting a horse, riding some miles into the country, return- 
 ing and entering the Senate or court, whip in hand, booted 
 and spurred, with the appearance of haste, just at the moment 
 he was expected to rise and speak, as if he had forgotten that 
 he was expected to occupy the floor, and had come wholly un- 
 prepared, and at once go on with his splendid display of 
 oratorical power fragrant with the oil of the midnight lamp. 
 
 " On the great Missouri question, Mr. Pinkney took the 
 lead in the Senate in favor of the Compromise, opposed to 
 Rufus King, who led the opposition to the admission of Mis- 
 souri as a slave State. His speech on that occasion was one 
 of the greatest efforts of his legislative life ; but another, 
 which he made many years before, denouncing slavery and 
 slave-holders for maintaining it, was the best answer to it. 
 
 14 Mr. Pinkney had a very extensive and lucrative business 
 
WILLIAM PINKNEY. 365 
 
 before the Supreme Court, greater than that of any other 
 member of that bar which demanded so much of his time 
 and labor that he had little to spare for the Senate. And 
 this was somewhat singular, as he had spent many years, from 
 1796 to 1811, as Minister at different times, to England, and 
 in 1818 to Russia and Naples. 
 
 " His biographer and nephew speaks of the 'punctilious 
 and studious attention to dress, which he acquired in foreign 
 courts, and which he retained to the close of his life.' He 
 was not less distinguished for his exquisite taste in dress, the 
 faultless cut of his garments, the delicate tint of his gloves, 
 the gossamer fineness of his ruffles and pocket-handkerchiefs, 
 in short, for the high fashion and fine material of his cos- 
 tume, than he was as an eminent lawyer, able statesman, and 
 refined gentleman. 
 
 " His death was startlingly sudden ; but, in the words of 
 his biographer, ' he fell in his might, before the tribunal he 
 delighted to address, and on the arena he most loved to tread.' " 
 Sargent's Public Men and Events \ vol. i., pp. 33-35. 
 
 "There he made his immortal speech on the Missouri 
 Compromise, the greatest speech ever delivered in the United 
 States Senate. Governor Burton, of North Carolina, gave 
 me an account of this speech forty years since. He said he 
 (Burton) was at that time a member of the House of Repre- 
 sentatives in Congress. There was great anxiety to hear 
 Pinkney, and the Senate chamber and galleries were crowded 
 to excess. Governor Burton sat down on the carpet, the only 
 seat he could get. He said the first part of Pinkney's speech 
 was entirely rhetorical and fanciful, and he thought to himself 
 what a fool he was to be sitting in the middle of the Senate 
 Chamber on the carpet listening to such a speech. But soon 
 afterwards Pinkney entered into the argument of the case, and 
 he was thrilled and overwhelmed by his logic and eloquence." 
 From Governor Perry's Sketches of Eminent Americans. 
 
366 NOTES. 
 
 WENDELL PHILLIPS. 
 
 I. Wendell Phillips was born in Boston, Mass., Nov. 29, 
 1811. He was educated in the Boston Latin School and at 
 Harvard University, graduating from Harvard in 1831. He 
 was noted in college for his skill in elocution and debate, 
 though he gave no indication of the spirit of a reformer. As 
 a student he was particularly fond of history, and he gave 
 special attention in his reading to the history of the English 
 and American revolutions. After a course in the Harvard 
 Law School he was admitted to the bar in 1834. He was 
 said to have been well equipped for the profession of the law 
 in all respects save one, that was, he had no love for the 
 law, and no ambition for success at the bar. The exception 
 was decisive, and the clients which he waited for did not 
 come. He had said that if no clients came he would throw 
 himself " heart and soul into some good cause," and devote 
 his life to it. The " cause" came in the claim of the slave. 
 The incident which won Phillips to the anti-slavery cause 
 occurred on October 21, 1835, when, looking from his office 
 window, he saw a "respectable mob" dragging Garrison 
 through the street with a rope around his waist. Garrison 
 was rescued from a violent death only by the Mayor's locking 
 him in jail for safety. From that day Phillips was an abo- 
 litionist. The speech on Lovejoy, two years later, brought 
 Phillips into public notice, and from then until the end of the 
 slavery conflict he devoted his talents and eloquence to the 
 anti-slavery cause. He became a follower and co-worker 
 of Garrison, holding that all slavery was a sin, that emancipa- 
 tion was an immediate duty, that colonization was a delusion, 
 and he combated and denounced the statesmanship which 
 sought to suppress the agitation, and he urged that slavery 
 and liberty could not be at peace under the same government. 
 With the other Garrisonians, he regarded the slavery com- 
 
WENDELL PHILLIPS. 367 
 
 promises of the Constitution as immoral and not binding on 
 the conscience ; that no power of civil government should be 
 used in support of slavery. 
 
 In 1864 Phillips opposed the re-election of Lincoln, and his 
 criticisms of Lincoln were among his severest utterances. 
 They were caused by what Phillips considered the President's 
 recreant conservatism. In 1865 he separated from Garrison, 
 opposing, while Garrison favored, the dissolution of the 
 American Anti-Slavery Society. In the later years of his life 
 Phillips devoted his talents to the Labor Movement, Temper- 
 ance Reform, and other measures of a radical character. He 
 became the Labor candidate for Governor of Massachusetts in 
 1870. He died on February 2, 1884. 
 
 One of the most noted orations of the later years of Phil- 
 lips' life was his address before the Harvard Chapter of the 
 Phi Beta Kappa, on " The Scholar in the Republic." 
 
 2. Historical Note. 
 
 On November 7, 1837, Rev. Elijah P. Lovejoy was shot by 
 a pro-slavery mob at Alton, Illinois, while attempting, under 
 sanction of police powers, to defend his printing-press from 
 destruction. When the news of this reached Boston, William 
 Ellery Channing headed a petition to the Mayor and Alder- 
 men, asking the use of Faneuil Hall for a public meeting. 
 The hall was refused. Dr. Channing then wrote a strong 
 public letter to his fellow-citizens, which resulted in a meet- 
 ing in the old Court Room. Resolutions were here drawn up, 
 and measures were taken to secure a larger number of names 
 to the petition for Faneuil Hall. The request for the use of 
 the Hall was then granted. The meeting was held on the 8th 
 of December, and organized with Hon. Jonathan Phillips, a 
 friend of Channing and a kinsman of Wendell Phillips, as 
 chairman. Dr. Channing made a brief and eloquent address. 
 Resolutions drawn by him were read by Hon. Benjamin F. 
 
368 NOTES. 
 
 Hallet, and were seconded in a forcible speech by George S. 
 Hillard. At the conclusion of Mr. Hillard's speech, the At- 
 torney General of Massachusetts, Hon. James T. Austin, was 
 seen elbowing his way toward the great gilded eagle in the 
 gallery over the main entrance with the evident purpose of 
 making a speech not on the program. Dr. Carlos Marty n, 
 in his Life of Phillips, says : " He at once, with practiced 
 skill, began an harangue, clearly intended and adroitly 
 adapted either to break up the meeting in a row, or array it 
 against the objects of its callers. He claimed that there was 
 ' a conflict of laws ' between Missouri and Illinois ; compared 
 the slaves to a menagerie, with lions, tigers, a hyena, an ele- 
 phant, and monkeys in plenty, and compared Lovejoy to one 
 who would break the bars and let loose the caravan to prowl 
 about the streets ; talked of the rioters of Alton as akin to the 
 ' orderly mob ' which threw the tea into Boston Harbor in 
 1773, and declared that Lovejoy was 'presumptuous' and 
 ' impudent,' and had ' died as the fool dieth ; ' and, in direct 
 and insulting allusion to Dr. Channing, closed by asserting 
 that a clergyman with a gun in his hand, or one mingling in 
 the debates of a popular assembly, was marvellously out of 
 place." 
 
 This speech produced great excitement throughout the 
 Hall. Austin was not without numerous supporters. Proba- 
 bly one third of the audience had come with intentions of 
 positive hostility toward the object of the meeting. Another 
 third were curious onlookers who yet were bent on fair play, 
 and free speech. For an eloquent description of the scene 
 and Phillips' attitude, see George William Curtis' speech on 
 Phillips, vol. iii. , Orations and Addresses. 
 
 3. After the destruction of his second press, Lovejoy had 
 appealed to the Mayor of Alton for protection. This officer 
 said that he had no police force. Lovejoy replied : " Very 
 
WENDELL PHILLIPS. 369 
 
 well, I will get another press, and with your consent I will en- 
 roll a special police force in the interest of law and order." 
 The Mayor assented to this. Lovejoy was thus standing on 
 his legal rights. 
 
 4. "In the annals of American speech, there had been no 
 such scene since Patrick Henry's electrical warning to George 
 III. It was the greatest of oratorical triumphs, when a su- 
 preme emotion, a sentiment which is to mould a people anew, 
 lifted the orator to adequate expression. Three such scenes 
 are illustrious in our history. That of the speech of Patrick 
 Henry at Williamsburg, of Wendell Phillips in Faneuil Hall, 
 of Abraham Lincoln in Gettysburg, three and there is no 
 fourth. They transmit, unextinguished, the torch of an elo- 
 quence which has aroused nations and changed the course of 
 history, and which Webster called ' noble, sublime, god-like 
 action.'" George William Curtis, Oration on Phillips, vol. 
 iii., pp. 280-281, Curtis' Orations. The whole of Curtis' 
 oration on Phillips should be read in connection with this 
 speech of Phillips. 
 
 5. The omitted paragraph refers to the excuse which had 
 been made for the Alton mob on the ground that there was a 
 "conflict of laws "between Missouri and Illinois. Phillips 
 asserted that no lawyer would make such a plea or affect to 
 believe that the laws of the two States were really in conflict 
 in the case at hand. And if they were how could Missouri 
 extend her jurisdiction over Illinois ? ' ' The Czar might as 
 well claim to control the deliberations of Faneuil Hall." 
 
 6. Referring to the men who fell in the " Boston massacre" 
 before the British troops. 
 
 7. Rev. Hubbard Winslow in his discourse on "Liberty" 
 defined liberty to be " liberty to say and do what the prevail- 
 
 VOL. II. 2J 
 
370 NOTES. 
 
 ing voice and will of the brotherhood will allow and protect." 
 See Phillips' Addresses, vol. i. 
 
 8. Hugh Peters, born in Cornwall, England, in 1598, in 
 1635 emigrated to Boston, and became minister to the Salem 
 Church in 1636. In 1641 he became the agent of the Colony 
 in England, and later filled important offices under Cromwell. 
 After the Restoration, in 1660, he was imprisoned in the 
 Tower, was tried and convicted as an accomplice in the death 
 of Charles I. He was hung at Charing Cross, October 17, 
 1660. Peters was one of the most pronounced of Puritan re- 
 publicans. Century Cyclopedia of Names. 
 
 Cotton was a Puritan minister of the time and type of 
 Peters. 
 
 9. Bold and active Puritan ministers of the previous cen- 
 tury. 
 
 10. "When the whirlwind of applause which followed the 
 orator's conclusion had rolled away, the Chairman put the 
 resolutions, and they were carried by an overwhelming vote. 
 Thus was defeat turned into victory by the genius of Phillips, 
 as, years afterwards, that other defeat at Winchester was 
 turned into victory by the magnetism of Sheridan." Martyn's 
 Life of Phillips, p. 101. 
 
 Oliver Johnson, who was one of Mr. Phillips' auditors 
 that morning, remarks : 
 
 "I had heard him once before (in his first Anti-Slavery 
 speech at Lynn), as a few others in that great meeting proba- 
 bly had, and my expectations were high ; but he transcended 
 them all and took the audience by storm. Never before, I 
 venture to say, did the walls of the old ' Cradle of Liberty ' 
 echo to a finer strain of eloquence. It was a speech to which 
 not even the completest report could do justice, for such a re- 
 port could not bring the scene and the manner of the speaker 
 
WENDELL PHILLIPS. 371 
 
 vividly before the reader. It was before the days of pho- 
 nography, and the report caught only a pale reflection of what 
 fell from the orator's lips." Johnson's Garrison and the Anti- 
 Slavery Movement^ p. 229. 
 
 " Wendell Phillips was not less interested than Garrison in 
 the emancipation of the slave, and the chief efforts of his life 
 were directed toward that end. But he was by nature and by 
 art an orator, even more than a reformer. To speak was his 
 life work. As Horace Greeley said, ' Phillips made men think 
 it was easy to be an orator.' He did not put the form before 
 the spirit ; he was no mere rhetorician, hunting for a cause 
 whereon to display his eloquence ; but he would have spoken 
 gracefully and strongly upon any question which aroused his 
 interest. So, indeed, he did. His intellectual equipment, 
 and, to a certain extent his tastes, were academic ; like Sum- 
 ner he was fond of classical themes and allusions, and when 
 occasion demanded, he could take pleasure in mere external 
 finish. Well read in ancient and modern literature, a mas- 
 ter in the use of invective and epigram, possessed of wit, 
 which both Garrison and Sumner lacked, he charmed the cul- 
 tivated and impressed the ignorant. A winsome personal 
 presence, and a serene, undisturbed manner, added to the 
 attractiveness of his words, and enabled him to speak before 
 great amdiences of enemies." Richardson's American Litera~ 
 ture, vol. i., pp. 250-251. 
 
 References : 
 
 Speeches of Wendell Phillips (Lee and Shepard). 
 
 Martyn's Life of Phillips. 
 
 Schouler's United States History, vol. iv., pp. 299-300. 
 
 Oliver Johnson's Garrison and the A nti- Slavery Movement \ 
 p. 229. 
 
 Niles' Register, 53. 
 
 Lowell's Sonnet to Phillips. 
 
3/2 NOTES. 
 
 Life of William Lloyd Garrison, by his children, vol. ii., 
 pp. 182-192. 
 
 " The Martyr Age," in the Westminster Review, 1838. 
 
 Memorial Oration on Phillips, by George William Curtis, 
 vol. in., p. 279, of Curtis' Orations. 
 
 Wilson's Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America, vol. 
 i., chap, xxvii., pp. 374-389. 
 
 Richardson's American Literature, vol. i. 
 
 JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. 
 
 I. John Quincy Adams, the sixth President of the United 
 States, was the eldest son of John Adams, the second Presi- 
 dent. He was born at Braintree, Mass., July n, 1767. He 
 received, under his father's influence, a special training for 
 diplomacy and statesmanship. He visited Europe with his 
 father in 1778 and again in 1780, attending for a time the 
 University of Leyden. After some time spent in Holland, Lon- 
 don, and Paris, he returned home, took a course at Harvard, 
 and graduated from that institution in 1788. He was ad- 
 mitted to the bar in 1791. Having turned his attention to 
 politics and to our foreign relations, he was appointed by 
 Washington as ambassador to the Hague. By Washington's 
 advice, President Adams sent his son as our minister to Prus- 
 sia, where he succeeded in negotiating a commercial treaty. 
 In 1801, young Adams was recalled by Jefferson ; in 1802, he 
 was elected to the Massachusetts Senate, and in 1803, to the 
 Senate of the United States. He was elected to the Senate as 
 a Federalist, and it may be considered that for four years he 
 was an adherent of that party. But he broke with the Fed- 
 eralists by his support of Jefferson's Embargo in 1807. On 
 account of this disagreement with his party and his State 
 Legislature, he resigned his seat in the Senate, and from 1807 
 
JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. 373 
 
 to 1809 he was professor of rhetoric and belles-lettres in Har- 
 vard University. In 1809, Adams was appointed by President 
 Madison as ambassador to Russia, an appointment which he 
 accepted against the wishes of his father. After acting as one 
 of the American negotiators in the Treaty of Ghent, Adams 
 served two years (1815-17) as United States minister at 
 London, when he returned to take the office of Secretary 
 of State under Monroe. His most distinguished service in 
 this office was in his negotiation of the treaty by which we 
 acquired Florida and defined the boundaries of Louisiana. He 
 was elected president by the House of Representatives, upon 
 the failure to elect of the Electoral College. He was defeated 
 for re-election in 1828, and for two years after March 4, 1829 
 he lived in retirement at Quincy, Mass. In 1831 he was 
 elected to the lower house of Congress, chiefly on account of 
 his opposition to secret societies. During his Congressional 
 career, from 1831 to 1848, he was independent of party, and 
 he distinguished himself particularly by his persistent advocacy 
 of the right of petition and his opposition to the " gag rule." 
 He was not one of the Garrisonian Abolitionists, for whom he 
 had many words of criticism, but his services to the anti-slav- 
 ery cause were recognized, notably in his opposition to the policy 
 of shutting off anti-slavery petitions and discussions, and in his 
 opposition to the annexation of Texas, or to any form of slav- 
 ery extension. He died from a paralytic stroke, falling upon 
 the floor of the House, February 23, 1848, and his last re- 
 ported words were, " This is the last of earth." 
 
 2. Historical Note : 
 
 The abolition agitation, which began in 1830 and 1831, gave 
 rise to a number of petitions to Congress praying for the aboli- 
 tion of slavery in the District of Columbia and for other con- 
 stitutional restrictions on slavery. For some time these were 
 respectfully referred to the proper committee, which regularly 
 
374 NOTES. 
 
 reported adversely. As the petitions became more numerous 
 they were buried in committee without report. By 1835 the 
 temper of the House had become still more hostile, and the 
 petitions were summarily laid on the table without being re- 
 ferred. Even this, however, did not satisfy the Southern 
 members, and on February 8, 1836, Mr. Henry L. Pinckney 
 of South Carolina, moved : 
 
 1. That all petitions should be referred to a select com- 
 mittee. 
 
 2. That this committee be instructed to report that Con- 
 gress has no constitutional power to interfere with slavery in 
 the States ; and, 
 
 3. That Congress ought not to interfere with slavery in the 
 District of Columbia. 
 
 On May 18, 1836, the Special Committee reported accord- 
 ing to instructions, and it added another resolution, for " the 
 purpose of arresting agitation and restoring tranquillity to the 
 public mind." The additional resolution was the first of the 
 famous " gag rules " of Congress, and was as follows : " That 
 all petitions, memorials, resolutions, propositions, or papers 
 relating in any way to the subject of slavery shall, without 
 being either printed or referred, be laid upon the table, and 
 that no further action whatever shall be had thereon." On 
 May 2$th, these resolutions were adopted by the application 
 of the previous question. Mr. Adams appealed for an oppor- 
 tunity to speak upon the question but it was denied. After a 
 protest against his being gagged, and a parliamentary appeal 
 from the decision of the Chair, it was decided that the main 
 question should be put. 
 
 ' ' The first resolution was then read as follows : 
 ' ' Resolved, That Congress possesses no constitutional 
 authority to interfere in anyway with the institution of slavery 
 in any of the States of this confederacy.' 
 
 " Mr. Adams said, if the House would allow him five 
 
JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. 375 
 
 minutes time, he pledged himself to prove that resolution false 
 and utterly untrue. 
 
 " Mr. Adams was here called to order in different parts of 
 the House and resumed his seat. The question was then 
 taken and the resolution was adopted by a vote of 182 to 9."* 
 
 Although Mr. Adams was denied the privilege of speaking 
 on this resolution, an opportunity occurred on the same day 
 which he was quick to improve. A joint resolution from the 
 Senate came up in the House, authorizing the President of 
 the United States to cause rations to be distributed to suffer- 
 ing fugitives from Indian hostilities in Alabama and Georgia. 
 This resolution seems far removed from the subject of slavery 
 and the right of petition, but Adams made it the occasion of 
 one of his most notable speeches, in which he not only vindi- 
 cated the freedom of debate in the House, but he took the 
 position that Congress, by the exercise of the war power under 
 the Constitution had the constitutional authority to abolish 
 slavery within the States. Among the constitutional states- 
 men of his day Adams stood alone, so far as we know, in ad- 
 vocacy of this doctrine ; but his theory was remembered by 
 Mr. Lincoln and his advisers in 1861-65, and it may be said 
 that the constitutional power of emancipation as a war measure 
 was based upon the doctrine here enunciated by John Quincy 
 Adams. 
 
 3. James K. Polk, of Tennessee, was Speaker of the 
 House. 
 
 4. Adams heie refers to the great latitude in discussion 
 which had been allowed in the Committee of the Whole, 
 noticing an altercation on an irrelevant matter between two 
 members from Maryland. This discussion about the laws and 
 constitution of Maryland had occupied hours without interrup- 
 tion or call to order. 
 
 * Congressional Debates, vol. xii., part iv., p. 4031. 
 
376 NOTES. 
 
 5. This constitutional position with reference to the power 
 of Congress over slavery within the States was one very 
 generally accepted by the country. It had been announced 
 by the first Congress, March 23, 1790, on the occasion of the 
 presentation of a memorial from the Society of Friends, of 
 Philadelphia. It was assented to by Webster in his reply to 
 Hayne, and even the Liberty Party men of 1840 and 1844, 
 and the Free Soilers of 1848, did not combat this constitu- 
 tional interpretation. It was from a feeling that this was a 
 true exposition of the Constitution that Garrison and his fol- 
 lowers denounced that instrument as " a covenant with death 
 and a league with hell." John Quincy Adams' position was 
 unique in his time, and this makes his speech of special his- 
 torical interest. 
 
 6., The final portions of this speech are devoted to the 
 dangers of war with Mexico and to the resistance of Georgia 
 to the authority of the National Government. 
 
 See Gales and Seaton's Register of Congressional Debates, 
 vol. xii., part iv., p. 4035. 
 
 JOHN C. CALHOUN. 
 
 1. For sketch of Calhoun, see vol. i., Notes, p. 393. 
 
 2. Historical Note on the Compromise of 1850. 
 
 The situation in 1850 may be briefly indicated as follows : 
 
 California was applying for admission with a free constitu- 
 tion, without the preliminary of a territorial organization, or 
 an enabling act, by Congress. 
 
 There were claims and denials as to the boundaries of 
 Texas. 
 
 There were complaints on the part of Southerners about 
 
JOHN C. CALHOUN. 377 
 
 escaping slaves, aided and abetted in the North, with threats 
 of disunion. 
 
 There was continued and persistent agitation for the aboli- 
 tion of slavery and the slave trade in the District of Columbia 
 and for congressional restriction of the inter-State slave 
 trade. 
 
 The great issue was still unsettled as to whether the Wilmot 
 Proviso should be applied to the territory acquired from 
 Mexico. What should be the status of this Territory as to 
 slavery ? This was the territorial question. 
 
 Of all these questions and disturbances the territorial ques- 
 tion was probably the most important and the most difficult 
 of settlement. The question had been prominently and hotly 
 discussed ever since it became known that the United States 
 would receive new territory from the Mexican War.* Of this 
 question there were four distinct possible solutions : 
 
 1. By the application of the Wilmot Proviso : Slavery 
 should be excluded from the Territories by Congressional 
 power. 
 
 2. By the application of the doctrine of Calhoun : slaves 
 are property and it is the bounden duty of Congress to 
 protect the rights of the slave-holder within the Territory, 
 the same as the law protected other property. Congressional 
 power over the Territories was positive and absolute, and this 
 power could be exercised to protect slavery but not to exclude 
 it. 
 
 3. By the extension of the Missouri line. This, it was held, 
 would be an equitable division of the territory between the 
 two sections. 
 
 4. By the principle of "popular sovereignty." Leave the 
 question to be settled by the settlers. Each of these solutions 
 
 * See p. 382, Note 4, and Speeches of Calhoun and Webster 
 on Oregon Question. 
 
378 NOTES. 
 
 had its earnest advocates, and there were prominent threats of 
 disunion in the emergency of disappointment. 
 
 The territorial question, i.e., the status of the Territories as 
 to slavery, is the subject which gave historic interest to the 
 Oregon debate. The issue had been then warmly contested, 
 and, as for all territory except Oregon, it had been left unset- 
 tled. After weeks of debate in the Senate on the organization 
 of Oregon, the bill for that purpose was referred to a special 
 committee with Clayton, of Delaware, as chairman. This 
 Committee reported a bill providing a territorial government 
 for Oregon, New Mexico, and California. This bill pro- 
 hibited slavery in Oregon, but the question as to whether the 
 Constitution permitted slavery in New Mexico and California 
 was to be referred to the Territorial Courts with the right of 
 appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. This 
 foreshadows the Dred Scott Decision. Thomas Corwin, a 
 Senator from Ohio, remarked, with caustic wit, that this bill 
 proposed " not to enact a law but only to enact a law suit." 
 
 It was in the same debate on the Oregon bill that Senator 
 Douglas, of Illinois, proposed an amendment to the bill ex- 
 tending the Missouri line to the Pacific. The purpose of this 
 amendment was clear. The Missouri line applied only to the 
 Louisiana purchase. Oregon was not a part of this purchase ; 
 neither were New Mexico and California, recently acquired 
 from Mexico. The slavery extensionists did not hope to secure 
 a footing for slavery in Oregon. Their design in this amend- 
 ment was well expressed by Webster. " The truth is," said 
 he, " this is an amendment by which the Senate wishes to have 
 now a public legal declaration not respecting Oregon, but 
 respecting the newly acquired territories of California and 
 New Mexico. It wishes now to make a line of slavery which 
 shall include those two territories." That is, while the restric- 
 tionists were to be allowed a sure thing on Oregon, all effort 
 on their part for restriction in New Mexico and California was 
 
JOHN C. CALHOUN. 379 
 
 to be forestalled. The extensionists would thus make sure of 
 slavery in the Mexican cessions. 
 
 One other point. By the law of New Mexico and California 
 existing before they were detached from Mexico, these Terri- 
 tories were free. By the law of nations it is the rule that the 
 law in a territory coming to a nation by conquest or purchase, 
 remains until changed by the new owner. The restrictionists, 
 therefore, claimed that there was an express law prohibiting 
 slavery in California and New Mexico until we ourselves should 
 change it. On this point Calhoun contended that, immedi- 
 ately the treaty was made, the Constitution superseded the 
 laws of Mexico in the transferred territory and legalized and 
 protected slavery there. Benton called this Calhoun's ' ' dogma 
 of the transmigratory function of the Constitution, and the 
 instantaneous transportation of itself in its slavery attributes 
 into all acquired territories." Thus there was doubt and dis- 
 pute as to what was the law of the Territories and as to the 
 status of the master with his slave. After the Oregon discus- 
 sion the proposition to extend the Missouri line to the Pacific, 
 while still urged by some, was not so prominently considered, 
 and the contention may be said to have been simplified by 
 1850 to three proposals : 
 
 1. Extension under Federal protection. 
 
 2. Restriction by Federal power. 
 
 3. Non-intervention. 
 
 In the midst of the difficulties and contentions Clay brought 
 forth his plan " to secure the peace, concord, and harmony of 
 the Union, to adjust amicably all questions of controversy be- 
 tween the States arising out of the institution of slavery, upon 
 a fair equality and just basis." Clay's resolutions urged the 
 following : 
 
 1. The admission of California free. 
 
 2. As slavery does not exist by law and is not likely to be 
 introduced into any of the territory acquired from Mexico it is 
 
380 NOTES. 
 
 inexpedient for Congress to provide by law, either for its intro- 
 duction into, or its exclusion from any part of that Territory, 
 and that territorial governments should be established for those 
 Territories without restriction as to slavery. 
 
 3. The determination of the Texan boundary. 
 
 4. That the United States should provide for the payment 
 of the public debt of Texas contracted prior to annexation, 
 for which Texas was to relinquish her claim to any part of 
 New Mexico. 
 
 5. That it is inexpedient to abolish slavery in the District of 
 Columbia, while that institution existed in Maryland, with- 
 out the consent of that State, without the consent of the people 
 of the District, and without just compensation to the owners of 
 the slaves. 
 
 6. That it is expedient to prohibit the slave trade within the 
 District of Columbia. 
 
 7. That more effectual provision should be made for the 
 rendition of fugitive slaves. 
 
 8. That Congress has no power to prohibit or obstruct the 
 inter-State slave trade. 
 
 These proposals of Clay were debated in the Senate for two 
 months, when they were referred to a select committee of thir- 
 teen of which Mr. Clay was chosen chairman. On May 8th 
 this Committee reported three distinct bills : 
 
 1. The so-called " Omnibus Bill," carrying, 
 (a) the admission of California ; 
 
 (3) the organization of New Mexico and Utah as Terri- 
 tories without restriction as to slavery ; 
 
 (c) the adjustment of the Texas boundary line, and the 
 payment of $10,000,000 to Texas as an indemnity for 
 her claim on New Mexico. 
 
 2. A stringent Fugitive Slave Law. 
 
 3- A bill prohibiting the slave trade in the District of 
 Columbia. 
 
JOHN C. CALHOUN. 381 
 
 The *' Omnibus Bill" having been taken up was so re- 
 peatedly amended that finally nothing was left of it except a 
 provision for a territorial government for Utah. It passed the 
 Senate in this shape on July 3ist. Each of the measures of the 
 " Omnibus Bill " might have carried a majority but it became 
 evident that all combined in one could not. While the combined 
 bill failed, its separate measures went through one by one. 
 
 A bill fixing the Texas boundary, with the $10,000,000 in- 
 demnity for Texas was passed on August gth. The Senate 
 was spurred to this by the avowed intention of the Governor 
 and legislature of Texas to occupy the disputed territory. 
 
 The bill for the admission of California passed the Senate 
 on the 1 3th of August. Ten Southern senators thereupon 
 signed a protest against the broken equilibrium. 
 
 The bill establishing a territorial government for New 
 Mexico passed the Senate on the isth of August. It provided 
 that the Territory might be subdivided at any time at the dis- 
 cretion of Congress, and that any State formed out of the Terri- 
 tory should be admitted into the Union with or without slavery 
 as her Constitution should then prescribe. Chase had moved 
 an amendment applying the Wilmot Proviso to this territory, 
 but it was rejected. 
 
 The Fugitive Slave Law passed on August 26th, by a vote of 
 more than two to one. 
 
 All these bills passed the House and became laws by the signa- 
 ture of President Fillmore, by September i8th, and two days 
 later a bill became a law suppressing the slave trade in the Dis- 
 trict. Thus all the measures proposed by Clay in January were 
 secured before the adjournment of Congress on September 30, 
 1850. 
 
 For further historical information on this period, consult 
 Rhodes' United States History since i8$o ; Schouler's United 
 States History, vol v. ; Wilson's Division and Reunion; " The 
 Anti-Slavery Struggle," pp. 16-21 of this volume. 
 
382 NOTES. 
 
 In special reference to Calhoun's speech, note the following : 
 
 Jenkins' Life of Calhoun, pp.3i3~44O. 
 
 Schouler's United States History, vol. v., pp. 157-166. 
 
 Wilson's Rise and Fall of the Slave Power, vol. ii., pp. 
 238-240. 
 
 Von Hoist's Constitutional History of the United States, 
 vol. 1846-1850, pp. 474-496. 
 
 Benton's Thirty Years' View. 
 
 Stephens' War between the States, vol ii., pp. 196-211. 
 
 Von Hoist's Calhoun, pp. 335-352. 
 
 Schurz' Clay, vol ii., pp. 31 5-339- 
 
 Wilson's Division and Reunion, pp. 168-174. 
 
 Seward's Works, vol. iv., pp. 15-30^^. 
 
 Calhoun's Works. 
 
 3. He refers to California, New Mexico, and Utah, terri- 
 torial organizations for which had been under discussion. 
 
 4. "To exclude the South" meant to Calhoun's mind, to 
 exclude slavery. Webster, in his speech on the Oregon bill, 
 very effectively answers this view. He says : " Gentlemen 
 say we deprive them of participation in Territories acquired 
 by common service and common exertions. How deprive? 
 Of what do we deprive them ? Of the privilege of carrying 
 their slaves to the new Territory. They say we deprive them 
 of the privilege of going into this Territory with their ' prop- 
 erty.' What do they mean by 'property.' We certainly do 
 not deprive them of the privilege of going into these new 
 Territories with all that in the general estimate of human 
 society, in the general and common and universal estimate of 
 mankind, is esteemed property. They have in their States 
 peculiar laws which create property in persons, while everybody 
 agrees that it is against natural law. They mean, then, that 
 they cannot go into the Territories of the United States carry- 
 ing their own peculiar local law which creates property in 
 
JOHN C. CALHOUN. 383 
 
 persons. This is all the ground of complaint they have. c . . 
 The demand of the South goes upon the idea that there is an 
 inequality unless persons under this local law, holding property 
 by the authority of that law, can go into new territory and 
 there establish that local law to the exclusion of the general 
 law. All the Southern people may go into the new Territory. 
 The only restraint is they may not carry slaves there and 
 continue the relation. They say this shuts them out altogether. 
 There can be nothing more inaccurate in point of fact than 
 this statement. Who settled Illinois ? Who settled Indiana ? 
 Immigrants from Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, and the 
 Carolinas, equally and with equal privileges with all other 
 sections." Speech on the Oregon Bill, Aug. 12, 1848. 
 
 Webster concluded his Oregon speech with the assertion 
 that he would stand " for the absolute power of Congress 
 over the Territories." 
 
 5. The preservation of this political equilibrium between the 
 slave States and the free had for some time been considered 
 essential by the Southern section. Henry A. Wise, of Vir- 
 ginia, in referring to the Texas question and further acquisi- 
 tions in the southwest, said, in the House of Representatives, 
 on January 26, 1842 : 
 
 " True, if Iowa be added on the one side Florida will be 
 added on the other. But there the equation must stop. Let 
 one more northern State be admitted and the equilibrium is 
 gone, and gone forever. The balance of interests is gone 
 the safeguard of American property, of the American Con- 
 stitution, of the American Union vanished into thin air. 
 This must be the inevitable result, unless by a treaty with 
 Mexico, the South can add more weight to her end of the 
 lever. Let the South stop at the Sabine while the North may 
 spread unchecked beyond the Rocky Mountains and the South- 
 ern scale must kick the beam." See Seward's speech of 
 
384 NOTES. 
 
 March II, 1850, in response to the idea of preserving the 
 equilibrium, Seward's Works. 
 
 6. He refers to Minnesota, a part of which was within the 
 Northwest Territory. 
 
 7. Calhoun's Constitutional doctrine was that the Constitu- 
 tion protected slavery in the Territories. A congressional 
 prohibition on slavery there was unconstitutional, and before 
 such prohibition was begun this territory was the possession 
 of the Slave States and open to the introduction of their pecu- 
 liar institution. He considers that the restriction had deprived 
 the South of its common possession. Compare his opinion 
 on this subject in 1850 with that of 1820. See Von Hoist's 
 Life of Calhoun, p. 74. 
 
 8. Is this claim on behalf of the National Government denied 
 by the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798? If the 
 claim were established would that indicate a change in the 
 character of the Government from its original form ? 
 
 9. Does Calhoun here concede that it was in vain that South 
 Carolina had stood for the protection of the State and against 
 central encroachment in 1830-33 ? Or, does he wish to indi- 
 cate that subsequent developments had proven the wisdom of 
 that notable contention of South Carolina ? 
 
 10. Calhoun was the first pro-slavery leader who came to 
 the defence of slavery as a good thing in itself. He pro- 
 nounced it a "positive good" ; that slavery was "a political 
 institution essential to the peace, safety, and prosperity of the 
 States in which it exists." See his Speech on the Abolition 
 Petitions, February 6, 1837 ; his Diplomatic Correspondence, 
 Letter to Packenham, 1844 ; Von Hoist's Life of Calhoun, 
 pp. 165-175 ; Jenkins' Life of Calhoun, pp. 380-384. Gover- 
 nor McDuffie's Address to the Legislature of South Carolina 
 
JOHN C. CALHOUN. 385 
 
 contains a similar defence of slavery. See American History 
 Leaflets, Lovell & Co., N. Y. 
 
 11. The New England Anti-Slavery Society was organized 
 in 1831, and the American Anti-Slavery Society in 1833. But 
 their agitation had not attracted general attention until the 
 date mentioned by Calhoun. By that time anti-slavery peti- 
 tions were pouring in on Congress. 
 
 12. See Speech on Abolition Petitions, February 6, 1837. 
 
 13. The schism between North and South in this Church 
 occurred in 1844, a chism not yet healed. The occasion was 
 the suspension of Bishop Andrew by the Baltimore Confer- 
 ence, for refusing to emancipate slaves coming to him by his 
 wife. 
 
 14. The plan of Clay may be seen in his resolutions. See 
 Historical Note, p. 379. President Taylor's plan was to admit 
 California with her free Constitution ; wait on the people of 
 New Mexico, allowing them to act and form their own insti- 
 tutions, before Congressional introduction of the sectional 
 topic. That is, let the question rest in the Territories until 
 they were ready to be admitted as States. This was not con- 
 gressional extension of the Wilmot Proviso by declaration, or 
 act, but was the same in effect. The laws of Mexico prohib- 
 iting slavery would have been recognized by the administra- 
 tion as operative in New Mexico, which would have encouraged 
 the formation of a free State constitution, like that of Califor- 
 nia. But in forming the State constitution, the settlers were 
 to be left free. How did this plan differ from that of " Popu- 
 lar Sovereignty," of 1854 ? 
 
 15. Clay had briefly discussed his resolutions, seriatim, on 
 January 29, 1850. He spoke again briefly upon the admission 
 of California and other related topics, on February 15, 1850, 
 and again at length on May I3th. See note on Clay p. 407. 
 
 VOL. II. 25 
 
386 NOTES. 
 
 1 6. In the parts omitted Calhoun discussed the Executive 
 plan, which he calls the "executive proviso," and this, he 
 says, is more objectionable to the South than the Wilmot Pro- 
 viso. The president's plan seeks to allay opposition in the 
 South by not openly asserting the Wilmot Proviso, but effect- 
 ing the same thing by taking special care to exclude Southern 
 settlers "by holding up to them the dread of having their 
 slaves liberated under the Mexican laws." He then proceeds 
 to combat the theory of "popular sovereignty," holding that 
 the power of legislating for the Territories was vested in Con- 
 gress, not in the inhabitants of the Territories. He objects 
 to the process of state-formation in California, as " revolution- 
 ary and rebellious in its character, anarchial in its tendency 
 and calculated to lead to the most dangerous consequences." 
 He describes what had been the uniform rule in the formation 
 and admission of States and compares the case of California 
 with that of Michigan and that of Tennessee. See Jenkins' 
 Life of Calhoun, pp. 431-437 ; Calhoun's Works. 
 
 (7. See remarks of Seward on the equilibrium, speech of 
 March II, 1850, Works of Seward. Such an amendment as 
 Calhoun considered necessary to save the Union he had 
 elaborated in his " Discourse on the Constitution and Gov- 
 ernment of the United States. It proposed that there should 
 be two presidents, one for external affairs and one for 
 internal affairs, but that each should have a veto on all con- 
 gressional legislation. Von Hoist says of this, that "as a 
 plan for saving the Union, it was one of the most monstrous 
 political absurdities ever devised ; " and that " Calhoun's only 
 plan of saving the Union was in reality a dissolution of the 
 Union." Von Hoist's United States Constitutional History, 
 pp. 495-496. See also Calhoun's Works, and Rhodes' United 
 States History, vol. i., p. 129. 
 
 18. " When, after the reading of the speech, supported on 
 
JOHN C. CALHOUN. 387 
 
 the shoulders of two of his friends, he tottered out of the Sen- 
 ate Chamber, the doors that shut behind him closed on the 
 second period of the history of the Union under the Constitu- 
 tion, in which the Star of the South had mounted to the zenith." 
 Von Hoist, Constitutional History of the United States, p. 
 497, Vol. 1846-50. 
 
 ' ' The floor of the Senate was assigned to Calhoun for the 
 4th of March, to speak on the compromise resolutions. Long 
 battle with disease had wasted his frame, but, swathed in flan- 
 nels, he crawled to the Senate Chamber to utter his last words 
 of warning to the North, and to make his last appeal for what 
 he considered justice to his own beloved South. He was too 
 weak to deliver his carefully written speech. At his request, 
 it was read by Senator Mason. Calhoun sat, with head erect 
 and eyes partly closed, immovable in front of the reader ; and 
 he did not betray a sense of the deep interest with which his 
 friends and followers listened to the well-matured words of 
 their leader and political guide. This was Calhoun's last for- 
 mal speech ; before the end of the month he had passed away 
 from the scene of earthly contention. The speech is mainly 
 interesting as stating with precision the numerical preponder- 
 ance of the North, the reasons of Southern discontent, and the 
 forebodings of his prophetic soul in reference to the future."" 
 Rhodes' History of United States Since 1850 ', vol. i., pp. 
 127-128. 
 
 4 ' Calhoun's speech, long promised and carefully written out, 
 was the last great effort of his life. The gloom of the sick 
 chamber in which he prepared it deepened its raven gloss ; its 
 dismal croak was of disunion. Another crowded auditory 
 listened to that speech, on the 4th of March, which Mason, a 
 fellow-Senator, read from the revised proof ; but Calhoun was 
 present and listened to the delivery, like some disembodied 
 spirit reviewing the deeds of the flesh. It was a strangely 
 haunting spectacle. The author turned half round, and listened 
 
388 NOTES. 
 
 as though all were new to him, moving not a muscle of his 
 face, but keeping his immovable posture, pale, skinny, and 
 emaciated that he was, with eyes partially closed, until the 
 last words were uttered and the spell was broken." Schouler's 
 United States History \ vol. v., pp. 165-166. 
 
 DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 1. For a sketch of Webster, see vol. i., p. 385. 
 
 2. Historical Note : 
 
 This speech of Webster's was delivered in the United States 
 Senate on the 7th of March, 1850. It is the only speech in 
 literature, so far as we know, that is known by the date of 
 its delivery. It is also called the " Speech on the Constitution 
 and the Union." 
 
 In approaching the study of this speech, it is important to 
 notice Webster's record upon the subject of slavery and slavery 
 extension . While unwilling to disturb the social relations of 
 the South, he had not hesitated to speak against "slavery in 
 the abstract," and he had taken a positive stand against slav- 
 ery extension. He considered Southern slavery a Southern 
 question. In 1819, during the Missouri struggle, he prepared 
 the Massachusetts Memorial to Congress, praying that body to 
 exercise its constitutional powers to prohibit slavery in the Ter- 
 ritories. He put into that paper all there was to be said 
 against allowing slavery to gain a foothold in a new country. 
 In 1820, in his celebrated speech on the "First Settlement of 
 New England," he gave to anti-slavery literature one of its 
 most vehement passages against the iniquity of the slave trade. 
 In 1830, in his reply to Hayne, he expressed the opinion that 
 slavery was one of the greatest of evils, both moral and politi- 
 cal, although he was willing to leave the domestic slavery of 
 
DANIEL WEBSTER. 389 
 
 the South where he found it ; and in referring to the Ordi- 
 nance of 1787, he considered it " highly wise and useful in 
 legislating for the northwest country while it was yet a wilder- 
 ness to prohibit the introduction of slaves." In his speech at 
 Niblo's Garden, New York, March 15, 1837, after the annex- 
 ation of Texas had come into public discussion, Mr. Webster 
 gave a more notable public expression in opposition to slavery 
 extension. He said : " Gentlemen, we all see that by whom- 
 soever possessed, Texas is likely to be a slave-holding country ; 
 and I frankly avow my unwillingness to do anything which 
 shall extend the area of the slavery of the African race upon 
 this continent, or add other slave-holding States to the Union. 
 When I say that I regard slavery as in itself a great moral, 
 social, and political evil, I only use language which has been 
 adopted by distinguished men, themselves the citizens of slave- 
 holding States. I shall do nothing, therefore, to favor or en- 
 courage its further extension." 
 
 In 1842, while he was Secretary of State under Tyler, Web- 
 ster conducted our negotiations with Great Britain in the case 
 of The Creole. In his diplomatic correspondence in this case 
 Webster held that it was the legitimate function of the gen- 
 eral government to recover damages for slave-owners for losses 
 incurred in the coast-wise slave trade whenever vessels of the 
 United States, engaged in this trade, were driven by stress of 
 weather or carried by unlawful force into British ports and 
 there had their slaves set free. In support of the slave inter- 
 est Webster asserted that "slaves are recognized as property 
 by the Constitution of the United States in those States in 
 which slavery exists." This was resented by Channing and 
 denied as a constitutional proposition by the Liberty party 
 men and Free Soilers. These held that slaves were recognized 
 as property only in the States where slavery existed, and that 
 by the law of those States, not by the law and Constitution of 
 the United States ; and even if the Constitution does recognize 
 
390 NOTES. 
 
 slaves as property in those States where slavery exists, it does 
 not follow that it recognizes them as such and supports that 
 condition outside of those States. Anti-Slavery opinion cen- 
 sured Webster for his conduct of The Creole case. 
 
 In the Oregon debate Webster boldly favored congressional 
 restriction on slavery. For an extract of his speech at this 
 time see p. 389. 
 
 Such had been the record of Webster on the subject of slav- 
 ery before his great speech on the 7th of March. It was, in 
 the main, a record which had excited in the minds of the 
 anti-slavery advocates expectations that he would speak help- 
 fully and powerfully for their cause. It should be one of the 
 purposes of the student of the 7th of March speech to deter- 
 mine to what extent Webster then changed his course, and in 
 how far he was culpable for the change. 
 
 In the pamphlet edition the speech was dedicated as follows : 
 
 " With the highest Respect 
 and the Deepest sense of Obligation 
 I dedicate this Speech 
 
 to the 
 People of Massachusetts." 
 
 " His ego gratiora dictu aliaesse; sed me Vera pro Gratis 
 loqui, etsi meum ingenium non moneret necessitas cogit'. 
 Vellem equidem, vobis placere ; sed multo malo vos salvos 
 esse, qualicumque erga me animo futuri estis."* 
 
 * " I know that there are other things to say more pleas- 
 ing than these, but necessity compels me to speak the things 
 that are true rather than the things that are pleasant, although 
 my inclination does not so advise. I should, indeed, wish to 
 please you, but I much prefer that you be safe, no matter in 
 what disposition you may be toward me." 
 
DANIEL WEBSTER. 39! 
 
 3. He here reviews historically the outbreak of the Mexican 
 War, its results, the Mexican territorial cessions, the gold dis- 
 coveries in California, the rapid settlement of that country, 
 and the formation of a State government there. He refers, 
 also, to the expectation on the part of the South that more 
 slave territory was to be the result of the Mexican War, and 
 now that California and New Mexico were apt to come in as 
 free States, there was manifest disappointment. 
 
 4. He here discusses briefly the Greek and Roman grounds 
 for slavery. 
 
 5. " The object of the instruction imparted to mankind by 
 the Founder of Christianity was to touch the heart, purify the 
 soul, and improve the lives of individual men," Webster says. 
 
 6. He refers to the schism in the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church with expressions of regret. 
 
 7. Was this a true characterization of the Abolitionists? 
 Would this passage justify Phillips in calling Webster a public 
 man of "easy morality " ? 
 
 8. In this omission Webster continues in the same vein of 
 opposition to the vexatious impatience of the Abolitionists. 
 
 9. Webster goes on to say that this early opposition to 
 slavery was even more pronounced at the South than at the 
 North. The framers of the Constitution, considering slavery 
 an evil, thought they had provided for its gradual extinction 
 by allowing the importation of slaves to be cut off after 1808. 
 Mr. Madison was especially anxious that the slave trade 
 should be thus curtailed. 
 
 10. As further evidence of the anti-slavery sentiment of the 
 formative period of the Constitution, Webster refers to the 
 Ordinance of 1787, and Virginia's cession of the Northwest 
 Territory and her vote to exclude slavery therefrom. He 
 
392 NOTES. 
 
 answers Calhoun by saying that the Ordinance ot 1787, the 
 first " restrictive measure calculated to enfeeble the South," 
 was enacted by the full concurrence of that section. The act 
 was not an aggression. This historical fact was clear. An- 
 other clear historical fact was that the Convention of 1787 
 intended to leave Slavery " in the States as they found it." 
 
 (1) The Constitution recognized slavery as it existed in the 
 States. 
 
 (2) Congressional prohibition of slavery in the Territories. 
 
 (3) Non-importation of slaves after 1808, with a view to the 
 gradual extinction of the institution. 
 
 These three points, according to Webster, indicated the mat- 
 ters on which there was " entire concurrence of sentiment be- 
 tween the North and the South at the period of the adoption 
 of the Constitution." He proceeds to discuss the reasons for 
 the subsequent change in this sentiment. 
 
 II. In answering Calhoun on the point that the preponder- 
 ance of power was in the North, Webster asserts that the 
 Northern majority must have acted very liberally or very 
 weakly. Northern power had never been exercised. He 
 then goes on to show that the power of government had been 
 exercised for the extension of territory for the sake of cotton 
 culture and slavery, illustrating by the cases of Louisiana, 
 Florida, and Texas. The resolution admitting Texas, March 
 I, 1845, provided that new States, not exceeding four in num- 
 ber, in addition to the State of Texas, might be fonned out 
 of the territory of that State. The States from this territory 
 south of 36 30' were to be admitted slave or free, as they 
 chose. Webster showed that this committed all of Texas to 
 slavery. It was "fixed, pledged, fastened, decided, to be 
 slave territory forever by the solemn guarantees of law." 
 This was done, as Webster shows, by Northern votes, by the 
 consent of Northern men. 
 
DANIEL WEBSTER. 393 
 
 12. Mr. Hamlin, afterwards Vice-President, 1861-1865. 
 
 13. Two members from Massachusetts voted for the annex- 
 ation of Texas, Williams and Parmenter. See Proceedings 
 of the House of Representatives, February 27, 1845. 
 
 14. The Hon. George W. Julian says, in a letter to the 
 editor, with regard to this passage : " The district referred to 
 was the one in which Dr. Palfrey was elected in 1847, and in 
 which in the struggle for re-election two years later he failed 
 of an election after repeated trials. The law required a 
 majority of all the votes cast to elect, and he had only a 
 plurality. The statement that the Free Soil Sentiment de- 
 feated the choice of any member was only true in the sense 
 that in the division of the voters of the district between the 
 Whigs, [Democrats?] and Free Soilers no candidate had 
 votes enough to elect." 
 
 15. This term was used to describe the Northern wing of 
 the Democratic party, those opposed to Southern pro-slavery 
 control of the party. 
 
 1 6. Mr. Berrien. 
 
 17. To defer anything to the Greek Kalends was to defer 
 it forever. There were no Kalends in the Greek months. 
 
 1 8. In this omission Webster speaks of his record in oppo- 
 sition to slavery extension and of his reluctance to consent to 
 such extension by the annexation of Texas. He quotes from 
 his speech at Niblo's, 1837, and from his speech at a Whig 
 Convention in Springfield, Massachusetts, September, 1847. 
 In the latter speech he claimed that the Wilmot Proviso was a 
 Whig principle and that he had stood for it since 1837. " We 
 are to use the first and the last and every occasion which 
 offers to oppose the extension of slave power." These were 
 his words. See also, the Historical Note, p. 389. 
 
394 NOTES. 
 
 19. The Three Million Loan Bill proposed to appropriate 
 $3,000,000 for the purpose of discharging any extraordinary 
 expenses which might be incurred in bringing the war with 
 Mexico to a conclusion. Webster's speech on this bill was 
 made March I, 1847. See Webster's Works, vol. v., pp. 
 253-261. 
 
 20. This was to carve new States out of Texas, by her con- 
 sent and when her population justified it, and admit them as 
 slave States. 
 
 21. A Convention in New Mexico in 1859 adopted a Consti- 
 tution in preparation for Statehood. This constitution pro- 
 vided for the admission of slavery. 
 
 22. To what extent does this notable utterance represent 
 true statesmanship ? 
 
 23. In the omission Webster compares his attitude toward 
 the Wilmot Proviso on a New Mexican bill with that of Polk 
 toward the same proviso on the Oregon bill. Polk was op- 
 posed to the proviso on the Oregon bill, but he considered it 
 senseless, and useless to its promoters, and he signed the bill 
 for the sake of a territorial government for Oregon. As Polk 
 would forego his opposition to the proviso, so Webster would 
 forego his advocacy of it when its presence or its absence 
 would affect nothing. 
 
 24. Webster remarks that all the territory acquired from 
 Mexico has a fixed and settled condition, that of Texas by 
 plighted public faith, that of California and New Mexico by a 
 law higher than human enactments. 
 
 25. This was in the case of Prigg vs. Pennsylvania. See 
 Sumner's Speech, p. 317, and the note thereto, Note 9, p. 428. 
 
 26. Mr. Mason, of Virginia, the author of the Fugitive 
 Slave Law of 1850. 
 
DANIEL WEBSTER. 395 
 
 27. Did the persons of whom Webster here speaks consider 
 that their moral and constitutional obligations were in con- 
 flict ? Or did they interpret the Constitution to justify their 
 course ? See Speech of Seward on " the higher law," and of 
 Sumner on the Fugitive Slave Law. 
 
 28. Webster refers here to the remarks of Mr. Hillard, in 
 the Massachusetts Legislature, to the effect that it was unbe- 
 coming for one set of public servants to lecture and instruct 
 another set of public servants. Webster speaks briefly upon 
 the binding force of State legislative instructions, holding 
 that he was not in the Senate merely as the representative of 
 Massachusetts. 
 
 29. For some account of these discussions see Wilson's Rise 
 and Fall of the Slave Power, vol. i., pp. 189-207. 
 
 30. Is this true ? If so were the Abolitionists responsible 
 for it ? 
 
 31. Webster refers to the violence of the press North and 
 South which he deprecates, but for which he can see no 
 redress. 
 
 32. Mr. Solomon W. Downs, the senior Senator from Loui- 
 siana, in a long speech delivered on the i8th and igth of Feb- 
 ruary, 1850, on the Compromise Resolutions, spoke of the 
 condition of the 3,000,000 slaves of the South, claiming that 
 they were the " gayest, happiest, the most contented, and the 
 best fed people in the world. They are not only immeasur- 
 ably better off than they would be in Africa, where their an- 
 cestors came from, but take the whole three millions and 
 compare them with a like number of laboring people in 
 Europe, or even in our own Northern States, and they would 
 not only stand a comparison, but would prove themselves 
 superior, so far as the comforts and enjoyments of life are 
 
396 NOTES. 
 
 concerned." (Appendix to Congressional Globe, ist Sess., sist 
 Congress, part i., p. 175.) Rhodes says no statement was 
 more completely false than such as this. See History of the 
 United States, vol. i. , p. 305 ; also Olmsted's Cotton King- 
 dom, vol. ii., p. 238. 
 
 33. It is interesting to note in connection with this remark 
 the concentration of wealth since Webster's day. What pro- 
 portion of wealth is now (1896) " in the hands of the laborers 
 of the North " ? 
 
 34. In 1835 South Carolina passed an act providing that 
 any colored person found on board of any vessel entering her 
 ports should be seized and jailed till the vessel should sail, 
 then to be restored to the vessel on payment of costs. Massa- 
 chusetts decided to test this act, basing the test on the clause 
 of the Constitution which says that " citizens of each State 
 shall have the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the 
 several States." South Carolina's act was clearly unconstitu- 
 tional, since colored men were citizens of some of the States. 
 Governor Briggs appointed Samuel Hoar to go to Charleston 
 to institute proceedings. For the result of this mission see 
 Greeley's American Conflict^ vol. i., pp. 178-185 ; and Wil- 
 son's Rise and Fall of the Slave Power, vol. i., pp. 576-586. 
 
 35. The omission contains remarks on two subjects. As to 
 Texas, he would be glad to see her paid fairly for any cession 
 she may choose to make north of 36 30', to be erected into a 
 free State. As to emancipation and transportation of free 
 colored people he would be glad to see almost any expense 
 incurred to accomplish the object. Webster indorsed King's 
 proposition made in 1820. See note, p. 349. Webster would 
 heartily co-operate with Southern men in accomplishing the 
 amelioration of the Southern blacks. 
 
DANIEL WEBSTER. 397 
 
 36. Probably no speech in American history has ever ex- 
 cited so much attention and criticism as this speech of Web- 
 ster's. It caused Webster to be denounced and repudiated by 
 the anti-slavery sentiment of the North. Before 1850 he had 
 spoken repeatedly against slavery extension ; now he seemed 
 willing that the new territory should be organized without 
 restriction. 
 
 To the anti-slavery reformer he appeared to magnify the 
 grievances of the South against the North, -while almost over- 
 looking those of the North against the South. Mr. Elaine 
 says : " Instead of arraigning the propagandists of slavery, he 
 arraigned its opponents. Instead of indicting the disunionists 
 of the South, he poured out his wrath on the Abolitionists of 
 the North."* 
 
 Curtis, Webster's biographer, concedes that the speech was 
 received "by the great majority of the North with disfavor and 
 disapprobation." 
 
 Joshua R. Giddings said that that part of Webster's criticism 
 against the South relating to the treatment of colored seamen 
 " was not in the speech as spoken, but was inserted by Web- 
 ster in the printed copy for circulation at the North. By 
 this speech a blow was struck at freedom and the constitu- 
 tional rights of the free States, which no Southern arm could 
 have given." 
 
 In the Massachusetts Legislature Webster was called a ' ' rec- 
 reant son of Massachusetts," who misrepresented her in the 
 Senate. Henry Wilson declared that Webster in his speech 
 had simply, but hardly, stated the Northern and national side, 
 while he had earnestly advocated the Southern and sectional 
 side ; that his speech was " Southern altogether, in its tone, 
 argument, aim, and end." Horace Mann wrote : " Webster is 
 a fallen star. There is a very strong opinion here at Washing- 
 
 * Elaine's Twenty Years of Congress, vol. i. , p. 93. 
 
398 NOTES. 
 
 ton that Mr. Webster has played false to the North." He was 
 accused on all sides of having made a bid for the presidency. 
 Theodore Parker compared the speech to the treason of Bene- 
 dict Arnold ; he called Webster " A bankrupt politician gam- 
 ing for the presidency," and he asserted that not one hundred 
 respectable men in New England endorsed the speech. The 
 religious press almost uniformaly disapproved. Emerson, the 
 Sage of Concord, wrote : " Mr. Webster is only following the 
 laws of his blood and constitution. He is a man who lives by 
 his Memory ; a man of the past, not a man of faith and hope. 
 All the drops of his blood have eyes that look downward, and 
 his finely developed understanding only works truly and with 
 all its force, when it stands for animal good, that is, for pro- 
 perty. He looks at the Union as an estate, a large farm, and 
 is excellent in the completion of his defence of it so far. What 
 he finds already written he will defend. Lucky that so much 
 got written before he came, for he has no faith in the power 
 of self-government." 
 
 Whittier, the poet of Freedom, indited with indignant fervor 
 his poem of " Ichabod," which he applied to Webster : 
 
 " So fallen ! So lost ! the light withdrawn 
 
 Which once he wore. 
 The glory from his gray hairs gone 
 Forevermore ! 
 
 . 
 
 1 ' Let not the land once proud of him 
 
 Insult him now, 
 
 Nor brand with deeper shame his dim 
 Dishonored brow. 
 
 " But let its humbler sons instead 
 
 From sea to lake 
 A long lament, as for the dead, 
 In sadness make. 
 
DANIEL WEBSTER. 399 
 
 " Of all we loved and honored naught 
 
 Save power remains ; 
 A fallen angel's pride of thought 
 Still strong in chains. 
 
 " All else is gone ; from those great eyes 
 
 The soul has fled ; 
 When faith is lost, when honor dies, 
 The man is dead. 
 
 '* Then pay the reverence of old days 
 
 To his dead fame ; 
 Walk backward with averted gaze 
 And hide his shame." 
 
 These extracts indicate the violent nature of the controversy 
 over Mr. Webster's course. Certainly no other speech of the 
 great orator ever produced so great a sensation as did this. 
 The reply to Hayne and the reply to Calhoun, as Mr. Rhodes 
 says, have a more permanent value and a more lasting influ- 
 ence ; the 7th of March Speech dealt entirely with slavery, and 
 when slavery with its problems and contentions had passed 
 away the speech lost all but its historical interest.* But from 
 the historical point of view, this is the most interesting of Web- 
 ster's speeches. 
 
 It is pertinent to consider here the altered verdict on Web- 
 ster which dates from the yth of March Speech, as represented 
 in these hostile criticisms. Some consider that the change of 
 sentiment towards Webster was but temporary, that the judg- 
 ment of posterity is more fair and more favorable. Many 
 think otherwise and still approve the condemnation then 
 visited upon Webster. Hon. Henry Cabot Lodge, Webster's 
 latest biographer, says : '* Mr. Curtis correctly says that a 
 
 * History of the United States since /$(>, vol. i. , p. 149. 
 
4OO NO TES. 
 
 great majority of Mr. Webster's constituents, if not of the 
 whole North, disapproved of this speech. He might have 
 added that that majority has steadily increased. The popular 
 verdict has been given against the 7th of March Speech, and 
 that verdict has passed into history. Nothing can now be said 
 or written which will alter the fact that the people of this 
 country who maintained and saved the Union have passed 
 judgment upon Mr. Webster and condemned what he said on 
 the 7th of March, 1850, as wrong in principle and mistaken in 
 policy. This opinion is not universal, no opinion is, but it 
 is held by the great body of mankind who know or care any- 
 thing about the subject, and it cannot be changed or substan- 
 tially modified, because subsequent events have fixed its place 
 and worth irrevocably."* 
 
 In examining the ground for this judgment, Mr. Lodge em- 
 phasizes the inconsistency in the tone of Webster's speech and 
 his views on the general subject of slavery as compared with his 
 former unmistakable position, an inconsistency especially 
 manifest in his utterances in regard to the Fugitive Slave Law. 
 " There can be no doubt," says Lodge, " that under the Con- 
 stitution the South had a perfect right to claim the extradition 
 of fugitive slaves. The legal argument in support of that 
 right was excellent, but the Northern people could not feel 
 that it was necessary for Daniel Webster to make it. The 
 Fugitive Slave Law was in absolute conflict with the awakened 
 conscience and moral sentiment of the North. . . . The 
 consciences of men cannot be coerced ; and when Mr. Web- 
 ster undertook to do it he dashed himself against the rocks. 
 People did not stop to distinguish between a legal argument 
 and a defence of the merits of catching runaway slaves. To 
 refer to the original law of 1793 was idle. Public opinion had 
 changed in half a century ; and what had seemed reasonable 
 
 * Lodge's Life of Webster, p. 303. 
 
DANIEL WEBSTER. 401 
 
 at the close of the eighteenth century was monstrous in the 
 middle of the nineteenth. 
 
 " All this Mr. Webster declined to recognize. He upheld 
 without diminution or modification the constitutional duty of 
 sending escaping slaves back to bondage ; and from the legal 
 soundness of this position there is no escape. The trouble was 
 that he had no word to say against the cruelty and barbarity of 
 the system. To insist upon the necessity of submitting to the 
 hard and repulsive duty imposed by the Constitution was one 
 thing. To urge submission without a word of sorrow or re- 
 gret was another. The North felt, and felt rightly, that 
 while Mr. Webster could not avoid admitting the force of the 
 constitutional provisions about fugitive slaves, and was obliged 
 to bow to their behest, yet to defend them without reservation, 
 to*" attack those who opposed them, and to urge the rigid en- 
 forcement of a Fugitive Slave Law, was not in consonance 
 with his past, his conscience, and his duty to his constituents. 
 The constitutionality of a Fugitive Slave Law may be urged 
 and admitted over and over again, but this could not make 
 the North believe that advocacy of slave-catching was a task 
 suited to Daniel Webster. The simple fact was that he did 
 not treat the general question of slavery as he always 
 had treated it. Instead of denouncing and deploring it, and 
 striking at it whenever the Constitution permitted, he apolo- 
 gised for its existence, and urged the enforcement of its most 
 obnoxious laws. This was not his attitude in 1820 ; this was 
 not what the people of the North expected of him in 1850."* 
 
 Mr. Lodge discusses further the situation in 1850 in regard 
 to the policy of compromise, and he considers that the conces- 
 sions of Webster and his pro-slavery attitude were not neces- 
 sary in order to save the Union. \ 
 
 * Lodge's Life of Webster, pp. 306, 307, 308. 
 f Lodge's Life of Webster , p. 308, et seq. 
 
 VOL. II. 26 
 
402 
 
 NO TES. 
 
 On the other hand, fairness to Webster requires a statement 
 of some considerations more favorable to his fame. Mr. 
 Rhodes, the latest historian of this period says: "It is 
 probable that the matured historical view will be that Webster's 
 position as to the application of the Wilmot Proviso to New 
 Mexico was the statesmanship of the highest order. In 1846, 
 1847, and 1848, the formal prohibition of slavery in the 
 territory to be acquired, or which was acquired, from Mexico, 
 seemed a vital and practical question. The latitude of the 
 territory in dispute gave reason to suppose that its products 
 would be those of the cotton States, and that it would naturally 
 gravitate towards slave institutions. While many believed that 
 the Mexican law sufficed to preserve freedom in California and 
 New Mexico, it nevertheless was good policy to make extraor- 
 dinary appropriations for the war only on condition of 'an 
 express understanding that the territory acquired should be 
 free. But in 1850 the question had changed. California had 
 decided for herself ; and the more important half of the 
 controversy was cut off by the action of the people interested. 
 There remained New Mexico. The very fact that California 
 had forbidden slavery was an excellent reason for believing 
 that New Mexico would do likewise. . . . The corre- 
 spondence between Webster and the delegate to Congress from 
 New Mexico shows that no one conversant with the facts had 
 the slightest notion that slavery had any chance of being estab- 
 lished in that Territory." * 
 
 The change in the situation in 1850 over that of 1848 does 
 not appear so forcible as Mr. Rhodes attempts to make out. 
 He urges other minor, but not decisive, considerations in 
 favor of Mr. Webster. The most forcible defence of Webster, 
 from the point of view of statesmanship and practical politics, 
 
 * Rhodes' History of the United States , vol. i., pp. 150- 
 151. 
 
DANIEL WEBSTER. 403 
 
 is urged by Mr. Elaine. In the early part of 1861, while the 
 Union seemed dissolving by secession, with a Republican 
 majority in both branches of Congress, Acts organizing the 
 Territories of Colorado, Dakota, and Nevada were passed with- 
 out containing a word of prohibition on the subject of slavery. 
 From the time the annexation of Texas was first considered, 
 the question of slavery in the Territories was in dispute be- 
 tween political parties. After the repeal of the Missouri 
 Compromise, in 1854, the Republican party was organized on 
 that issue alone, and for seven years its leaders had kept up an 
 exclusive agitation on this one question. " Yet," says Mr. 
 Elaine, " the first time the party had the power, as a distinc- 
 tively political organization, to enforce the cardinal article of 
 its political creed, it quietly and unanimously abandoned it.'* 
 Mr. Sumner, Mr. Wade, Mr. Seward, and other radical Free 
 Soilers and Republicans of former days sat still and allowed 
 the bill to pass, without a word of explanation or protest. 
 Why this change of attitude ? Were these great men " rec- 
 reant " to their former principles ? The answer is, that they 
 were merely in the position in which Webster found himself 
 in 1850. Mr. Elaine, in speaking of the situation and states- 
 men of 1861, says : 
 
 "If, indeed, it be fairly and frankly admitted, as was the 
 fact, that receding from the anti-slavery position was part of 
 the conciliatory policy of the hour, and that the Republicans, 
 did it the more readily because they had full faith that slavery 
 never could secure a foothold in any of the Territories named,, 
 it must be likewise admitted that the Republican party took 
 precisely the same ground held by Mr. Webster in 1850, and 
 acted from precisely the same motives that inspired the 7th of 
 March Speech. Mr. Webster maintained for New Mexico 
 only what Mr. Sumner now admitted for Colorado and 
 Nevada. Mr. Webster acted from the same considerations 
 that now influenced and controlled the judgment of Mr. 
 
404 NOTES. 
 
 Seward. As a matter of historic justice, the Republicans who 
 waived the anti-slavery restriction should at least have offered 
 and recorded their apology for any animadversions they had 
 made upon the course of Mr. Webster ten years before. 
 Every prominent Republican senator who agreed in 1861 to 
 abandon the principle of the Wilmot Proviso in organizing the 
 Territories of Colorado and Nevada, had, in 1850, heaped re- 
 proaches upon Mr. Webster for not insisting upon the same 
 principle for the same territory. Between the words of Mr. 
 Seward and Mr. Sumner in the one crisis and their votes in the 
 other, there is a discrepancy for which it would have been 
 well to leave on record an adequate explanation. The danger 
 to the Union, in which they found a good reason for receding 
 from the anti-slavery restriction on the Territories, had been 
 cruelly denied to Mr. Webster as a justifying motive. They 
 found in him only a guilty recreancy to sacred principle for 
 the same act which in themselves was inspired by devotion to 
 the Union."* 
 
 Mr. Galusha A. Grow, who was, in 1861, the Chairman of 
 the House Committee on Territories, criticises this passage of 
 Blaine, saying that the situations in 1850 and 1861 were not at 
 all similar. His remark merely emphasizes the fact that a 
 statesman's course must be determined chiefly by his circum- 
 stances. The interesting question is, whether the situation in 
 1850 demanded of a Northern statesman a positive prohibition 
 of slavery in the territories, which was not demanded by the 
 situation in 1861. There is still, and perhaps always will be 
 a difference of opinion on that question. f It should be 
 understood in saying that a statesman should be guided by his 
 circumstances, that there are certain inviolable principles of 
 
 * Elaine's Twenty Years of Congress, vol. i., p. 271. 
 f See Addendum, Twenty Years of Congress, vol. ii. 
 
DANIEL WEBSTER. 405 
 
 morality and justice which are not to be compromised or given 
 away. 
 
 Webster has been compared to Burke. In another speech 
 on the Compromise Measures, July 17, 1850, he took as 
 his motto a passage from Burke's speech on Conciliation 
 with America : ' ' Alas ! alas ! When will this speculating 
 against fact and reason end ? What will quiet these panic 
 fears which we entertain of the hostile effect of a conciliatory 
 conduct? Is all authority, of course, lost when it is not 
 pushed to the extreme?" Webster did not consider it 
 necessary to assert his former principles when the assertion 
 would result in nothing but irritation. He was not afraid of 
 the charge of inconsistency, for he wisely regarded consistency 
 as only the "bugbear of small minds." " Whenever there is 
 a particular good to be done, wherever there is a foot of land to 
 be stayed back from becoming slave territory, I am ready to 
 assert the principle of the exclusion of slavery. I am pledged 
 to it from the year 1837. I have been pledged to it again and 
 again ; and I will redeem those pledges. But I will not do a 
 thing unnecessary, that wounds the feelings of others, or that 
 does disgrace to my own understanding." What could be more 
 like Burke ? 
 
 It has been said of Webster that, like Burke, "he changed 
 his front but he never changed his ground " ; and, like Burke, 
 he believed that prudence is the first of political virtues, the 
 standard of all political action. We may conclude that 
 Webster was wrong in his denunciations of the Abolitionists ; 
 that it is to be regretted that he failed to take higher ground 
 upon the great "irrepressible conflict" of that day. It would 
 have been better for his fame if he had stood with Seward and 
 Chase, who represented the higher and truer statesmanship 
 then needed to meet the aggressions of slavery. But, after all, 
 we may well believe that it was not because Webster hated 
 slavery less, but that he loved the Union more, that he made 
 
406 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 this speech. He simply believed that slavery could not be 
 further opposed and the Union preserved ; that the anti- 
 slavery crusade could not continue without endangering the 
 Union. He represented the type of statesman of 1787 and 
 again in 1863 say, of Madison and Lincoln , whose para- 
 mount object was in the first instance to form, in the second 
 instance to preserve, the Union. On the 7th of March Webster 
 represented the resultant of forces, the conflict of motives. 
 He hated slavery, he loved the Union ; his love for the Union 
 was the stronger, and for the sake of that affection he was 
 willing to call a halt upon his opposition to slavery. 
 
 Webster himself considered this speech the most important 
 effort of his life. His eulogists have said that it postponed 
 the war for a decade, until the forces of the Union were strong 
 enough for its preservation. If hostile critics may truthfully 
 say that this Speech added nothing to a life of otherwise great 
 achievement, it may with equal truth be said that it certainly 
 was not the occasion of any serious or permanent loss to 
 Webster's fame. With it or without it the life and speeches 
 of Daniel Webster will be read by all subsequent generations 
 of his countrymen with admiration for his marvellous talents, 
 and with gratitude for his lasting services to the Republic.* 
 
 For further study of the situation in 1850, and of Webster's 
 course, see previous Introduction, p. v. and Historical Note, 
 p. 388. Also note the following special references : 
 
 Schouler's United States History, vol. v., pp. 166 et seq. 
 
 Lodge's Life of Webster, pp. 287-332. 
 
 Curtis' Lifeof Webster, vol. ii., pp., 381-420. 
 
 Elaine's Twenty Years of Congress, vol. i., pp. 90 et seq., 
 and p. 271, and the Addendum. 
 
 * In the final note I have used a few passages from my 
 supplementary note to the 7th of March Speech in Select 
 Orations of Burke and Webster, published by Heath & Co. 
 
HENRY CLAY. 407 
 
 Rhodes' History of the United States Since 1850, vol. i. t 
 pp. 137-160. 
 
 Woodburn and Hodgin's Select Orations of Burke and 
 Webster (Studies in American Commonwealth) , pp. 509-517; 
 PP. 574-582. 
 
 Teft's Life of Webster, pp. 403-420. 
 
 Von Hoist's Constitutional History of the United States, 
 1846-1850, pp. 497-507. 
 
 Greeley's American Conflict, vol. i., pp. 198-208. 
 
 Wilson's Rise and Fall of the Slave Power \ vol. ii. 
 
 HENRY CLAY. 
 
 1. For sketch of Clay, see vol. i. f p. 376. 
 
 2. This speech of Clay's was made in the United States 
 Senate July 22, 1850. This was nearly six months after he 
 had first introduced his compromise resolutions (January 2gth) 
 and two and a half months after the Committee of Thirteen 
 had made its report (May 8th). Mr. Clay, as Chairman of 
 this Committee, had charge of the bills which it reported, and 
 he was in constant service answering objections and urging 
 arguments. It seemed probable for a while that the opposi- 
 tion to the compromise scheme would be strong enough to de- 
 feat it. This opposition came from the Free Soilers of the 
 North and the extreme slavery advocates of the South. Dur- 
 ing the progress of the debate and before this speech of Clay's, 
 two events occurred which had an important bearing upon the 
 outcome, i. The Nashville Convention of June 2-4, 1850. 
 This had been called at a meeting in Jackson, Mississippi, in 
 May, 1849, for the purpose of solidifying Southern influence 
 in opposition to Northern aggression. The Southern dis- 
 
408 NOTES. 
 
 unionists proposed to make this Convention the occasion of 
 showing the opposition of the South to the Compromise. From 
 this point of view the Convention was not a success, and its 
 influence tended to discourage Southern opposition to Clay's 
 proposals. 2. The second event was the death of President 
 Taylor, July 9, 1850. Seward was influential in the councils 
 of Taylor, and the influence of the administration had been 
 forcibly exerted against certain features of the Compromise, 
 notably on the questions touching the Territories and the 
 Texan boundary. 
 
 During the long debate Mr. Clay had spoken many times. 
 On February I4th he spoke at length in favor of the inde- 
 pendent admission of California. On April 8th. he spoke in 
 favor of the appointment of the special Committee of Thirteen. 
 On May 8th, Mr. Clay made the report for this Committee, 
 and on May 13th, he spoke at length in favor of its proposals. 
 Two days later, May 15th, he spoke again in reply to Jeffer- 
 son Davis, of Mississippi, on the question : " Does the Con- 
 stitution carry slavery into the Territories ? " Davis had pro- 
 posed an amendment to the territorial bills for Utah and New 
 Mexico, so as to recognize the Calhoun doctrine, which Clay 
 opposed. Clay spoke again on May 2ist, answering objec- 
 tions to the Committee's report. On June 7th, 8th, and I3th, 
 he speaks on the title and boundary of Texas, holding that 
 the title was good enough to justify payment for the claim. 
 Again on July 15th and igth, he spoke on the admission of 
 California, now incorporated in the ' ' Omnibus Bill. " Clay 
 held at this time that this admission might well be made de- 
 pendent on the other proposals. On July 22d, he makes his 
 last speech on these subjects, speaking on the pending 
 "Omnibus Bill." See Historical Note to Calhoun, p. 380. 
 " Ever since January 28th he had been on the floor almost 
 day after day, sometimes so ill that he could hardly drag his 
 tottering limbs to the Senate chamber. So he toiled on, an- 
 
HENRY CLAY. 409 
 
 swering objections and arguing and pleading, and expostulate 
 ing, and appealing and beseeching, with anxious solicitude, 
 for the Union, and for peace and harmony among all its 
 people. He had thrown aside all sectional spirit. ' Sir,' he 
 exclaimed once, ' I have heard something said about allegiance 
 to the South. I know no South, no North, no East, no West, 
 to which I owe any allegiance.' Whatever may be said of the 
 wisdom of his policy, his motives had never been more patri- 
 otic and unselfish. He was no longer a candidate for the 
 Presidency. There was no longer any vulgar ambition dis- 
 turbing him. ' I am here,' he said, ' expecting soon to go 
 hence, and owing no responsibility but to my own conscience 
 and to God."* 
 
 After the " Omnibus Bill " had been so disfigured by amend- 
 ments that Clay thought it was defeated, he retired from the 
 leadership, leaving the Senate halls for rest and recuperation 
 at Newport. It was in Clay's absence that the measures 
 which he favored went through, one by one. 
 
 See Schouler, Von Hoist, Rhodes, Greeley, Wilson, and 
 especially Schurz' Life of Clay, and Clay's Works, edited by 
 Colton. 
 
 3. This refers to the Nashville Convention of June, 1850. 
 See Historical Note above. See also Greeley's Conflict, 
 Rhodes, and Schouler. 
 
 4. Clay here expresses his regret at the establishment of a 
 sectional paper in Washington, and at other influences tending 
 to excite sectional feeling ; and he denies that Kentucky was 
 opposed to the Compromises, as had been charged. 
 
 5. In this omission of considerable length Clay describes 
 the appointment and work of the Committee of Thirteen, 
 
 * Schurz' Life of Clay -, vol. ii., pp. 355, 356. 
 
410 NOTES. 
 
 making a plea for the special measures recommended by its 
 report. See Historical Note, p. 408. He speaks, also, of 
 President Taylor's plan, eulogizing the departed President but 
 urging the necessity of a territorial government for New 
 Mexico and Utah, which Taylor would have deferred. 
 
 6. Clay says there is no more coercion in the concession 
 which he urges than in the numerous treaties which the 
 United States have made in settling the Maine boundary, or 
 in coming down from 54 40' to 49 in Oregon. These trea- 
 ties represent mutual and reciprocal concessions, as this bill 
 does, which contains a variety of provisions, some of which are 
 approved and some disapproved. 
 
 7. He defends the " Omnibus Bill" against the charge of 
 incongruity, saying that it was not that the bill had too much, 
 but that it had too little, it was not the variety but the lack of 
 matter in the bill which had excited the opposition. If the 
 Wilmot Proviso and two or three more States from Texas had 
 been in the bill, certain objectors North and South would not 
 have spoken. He charges the opposition to the bill with 
 greater incongruity, and resents the insinuation that Senators 
 of opposite parties had been seen in consultation over the 
 bill. Men like Cass and Webster were in harmony as passen- 
 gers in the " omnibus," and among these passengers were no 
 disunionists and Free Soilers. He urges that the Constitu- 
 tion itself was a compromise, " a great, a memorable, mag- 
 nificent compromise," and he urges upon the Northern Sena- 
 tors the benefits to their section involved in certain measures 
 proposed. He repeats Webster's argument as to the improb- 
 ability of Slavery's being established in the disputed Terri- 
 tories. He resents a remark attributed to Senator Davis, of 
 Massachusetts, which Davis disclaimed, that New Mexico 
 would be advantageous for the breeding of slaves. Clay held 
 that the whole charge of slave-breeding was false and ground- 
 
HENRY CLAY. 41 1 
 
 less. He then makes a summary of the advantages to the two 
 sections to be derived from the passage of the Committee's 
 proposals ; and discusses the provisions of the Constitution as 
 to slavery ; urges upon the Southern men that their views of 
 their constitutional rights in the Territories may be errone- 
 ous ; discusses the probable consequences of the defeat of 
 these measures, urging that a civil war would break out be- 
 tween Texas and New Mexico, and that if the United States 
 repelled the attack of Texas on New Mexican territory, other 
 slave States would come to the assistance of Texas, and the 
 civil conflict might spread to the extent of involving the 
 sections in an awful war. One of the most salutary effects of 
 the compromise measures, according to Clay, would be the 
 cessation of the anti-slavery agitation. He shows to his own 
 satisfaction that there would be nothing left for the Abolition- 
 ists to agitate about. He then appeals to our history to show 
 that after the storm a calm is sure to follow, using the struggle 
 over the Missouri Compromise as an illustration. 
 
 8. He illustrates the same line of thought by the Tariff 
 Compromise of 1833. 
 
 9. Was this an utterance of a "low ambition"? See 
 
 Phillips' Speech, p. 233. 
 
 10. Clay here makes a personal appeal to some of his fellow 
 Senators, especially to Senator Mason, of Virginia, whose an- 
 cestry he eulogizes. 
 
 11. " Like an electric shock the word thrilled the audience, 
 and volleys of applause broke forth from the crowded galle- 
 ries." Schurz' Life of Clay, vol. ii., p. 357. 
 
 12. Can it be doubted, in the light of this utterance where 
 Clay would have stood in 1861 ? The words of this speech 
 were quoted at that time with effect upon many men who had 
 for years followed Clay's political fortunes. 
 
412 NOTES. 
 
 WENDELL PHILLIPS. 
 
 1. For sketch of Phillips, see p. 366. 
 
 2. This speech was delivered before the Massachusetts 
 Anti-Slavery Society, Boston, Mass., January 27, 1853. The 
 text for the speech is found in the resolution with which it is 
 introduced and the occasion for it is suggested by the speech 
 itself. The Abolitionists had been derided and abused by re- 
 spectable and influential men ; they had been denounced as a 
 hindrance to the cause which they professed to serve. It was 
 yet a matter of reproach and embarrassment among the " in- 
 fluential " classes to be known as an Abolitionist. Phillips 
 thought the time had come to set forth the historic apology, or 
 defence, for the cause for which he and others had been con- 
 tending for twenty years. This is, perhaps, the ablest and 
 most exhaustive of Mr. Phillips' speeches, and the one of most 
 permanent value. Besides being a fine specimen of Phillips" 
 eloquence on his favorite theme, as a summary of the course 
 and contention of the Abolitionists and of their contribution 
 to the anti-slavery cause the speech is of historical impor- 
 tance and significance. 
 
 3. Phillips here engages in general introductory remarks, 
 in which he asserts that the course of the Abolitionists had been 
 wise, that their efforts had been tested by time and approved 
 by success. In these statements he lays down the propositions 
 which it is the purpose of the speech to prove. 
 
 4. "Ion's" article in the London Leader was copied, in 
 part, into the Christian Register of Boston, a Unitarian 
 journal. The Register did not copy the part which gave a 
 tribute to Garrison's motives and character, but only the part 
 which questioned his charity and sagacity and criticised his 
 methods. This gives Phillips an opportunity publicly to 
 
WENDELL PHILLIPS. 413 
 
 pillory the Register as an illustration of the rottenness of our 
 politics and religion. 
 
 5. " Ion " then goes on to say : 
 
 ' ' This is a defence which has been generally accepted on this 
 side of the Atlantic, and many are the Abolitionists among us 
 whom it has encouraged in honesty and impotence, and whom 
 it has converted into conscientious hinderances. . . . 
 
 " We would have Mr. Garrison to say, ' I will be as harsh 
 as progr ess, as uncompromising as success.' If a man speaks 
 for his own gratification, he may be as ' harsh ' as he pleases ; 
 but if he speaks for the down-trodden and oppressed, he must 
 be content to put a curb upon the tongue of holiest passion, 
 and speak only as harshly as is compatible with the ameliora- 
 tion of the evil he proposes to redress. Let the question be 
 again repeated : Do you seek for the slave vengeance or 
 redress ? If you seek retaliation, go on denouncing. But 
 distant Europe honors William Lloyd Garrison because it 
 credits him with seeking for the slave simply redress. We say, 
 therefore, that ' uncompromising ' policy is not to be measured 
 by absolute justice, but by practical amelioration of the slaves' 
 condition. Amelioration as fast as you can get it, absolute 
 justice as soon as you can reach it." 
 
 "Ion" quotes the sentiment of Confucius, that he would 
 choose for a leader "a man who would maintain a steady 
 vigilance in the direction of affairs, who was capable of form- 
 ing plans, and of executing them," and says : 
 
 " The philosopher was right in placing wisdom and 
 executive capacity above courage ; for, down to this day, our 
 popular movements are led by heroes \vhofear nothing, and 
 who win nothing. . . . 
 
 " There is no question raised in these articles as to the work 
 to be done, but only as to the mode of really doing it. The 
 platform resounds with announcements of principle, which is 
 
414 NOTES. 
 
 but asserting the right, while nothing but contempt is showered 
 on policy, which is the realization of right. The air is filled 
 with all high cries and spirited denunciations ; indignation is 
 at a premium ; and this is called advocacy. . . . But to 
 calculate, to make sure of your aim, is to be decried as one 
 who is too cold to feel, too genteel to strike." 
 
 Further on, " Ion " observes : 
 
 "If an artillery officer throws shell after shell which never 
 reach the enemy, he is replaced by some one with a better 
 eye and a surer aim. But in the artillery battle of opinion, 
 to mean to hit is quite sufficient ; and if you have a certain 
 grand indifference as to whether you hit or not, you may 
 count on public applause. . . . 
 
 "A man need be no less militant, as the soldier of facts, 
 than as the agent of swords. But the arena of argument 
 needs discipline, no less than that of arms. It is this which 
 the anti -slavery party seem to me not only to overlook, but to 
 despise. They do not put their valor to drill. Neither on 
 the field nor the platform has courage any inherent capacity of 
 taking care of itself." 
 
 "Ion" then proceeds to make a quotation from Mr. 
 Emerson, as follows: "Let us withhold every reproachful, 
 and, if we can, every indignant remark. In this cause, we 
 must renounce our temper, and the risings of pride. If there 
 be any man who thinks the ruin of a race of men a small 
 matter compared with the last decorations and completions of 
 his own comfort, who would not so much as part with his ice- 
 cream to save them from rapine and manacles, I think I 
 must not hesitate to satisfy that man also that his cream 
 and vanilla are safer and cheaper by placing the negro nation 
 on a fair footing than by robbing them. If the Virginian 
 piques himself on the picturesque luxury of his vassalage, 
 on the heavy Ethiopian manners of his house-servants, 
 their silent obedience, their hue of bronze, their turbaned 
 
WENDELL PHILLIPS. 415 
 
 heads, and would not exchange them for a more intelligent 
 but precarious hired services of whites, I shall not refuse to 
 show him that, when their free papers are made out, it will 
 still be their interest to remain on his estates ; and that the 
 oldest planters of Jamaica are convinced that it is cheaper to 
 pay wages than to own slaves." 
 
 The critic takes exception to Mr. Garrison's approval of the 
 denunciatory language in which Daniel O'Connell rebuked the 
 giant sin of America, and concludes his article with this 
 sentence : 
 
 " When William Lloyd Garrison praises the great Celtic 
 monarch of invective for this dire outpouring, he acts the 
 part of the boy who fancies that the terror is in the war-whoop 
 of the savage, unmindful of the quieter muskets of the 
 civilized infantry, whose unostentatious execution blows whoop 
 and tomahawk to the Devil." 
 
 Speaking of Emerson, Phillips does not regard him as 
 endorsing the criticisms of the Abolitionists, and he gives a 
 generous recognition of Emerson's services to the anti-slavery 
 cause. 
 
 6. The figure is from Isaiah Ivi : 10. " His watchmen are 
 blind ; they are all ignorant. They are all dumb dogs, they 
 cannot bark ; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber." 
 
 7. Sympathizers with ' ' Ion " pretend that the anti-slavery 
 movement has been mere fanaticism. This they assert in 
 order to justify their indifference or hostility. Their change 
 to some degree of favor, they explain, is because the move- 
 ment is now fostered by men of thoughtful minds and fair 
 dispositions. Phillips claimed that the converts, neither by 
 their charity, sagacity, nor culture, had struck out any new 
 method of reaching the public mind, originated a new 
 argument or discovered a new fact. 
 
416 NOTES. 
 
 8. These passages on Webster and Clay offer a good subject 
 for historical criticism. What were the relative moral merits 
 of the two Statesmen and their unsparing critic ? See the 
 passage from Clay, p. 210. 
 
 9. Haynau was an Austrian general in the war of the Hung- 
 arian revolution of 1848-9, who suppressed the insurgents with 
 a cruel and ruthless hand. Hungary lost all independence and 
 all constitutional freedom and sank for a short time into a 
 vassal province of Austria. It was at this time that Kossuth 
 fled. See M tiller's Political History of Recent Times , pp. 
 243-246. 
 
 10. Phillips here arraigns the " leading men " for counting 
 on the prejudices of the majority, expecting to cajole the 
 Present. " Their only fear is the judgment of the Future. 
 Our only hold upon them is the thought of that bar of pos- 
 terity, before which we are all to stand. Thank God ! there 
 is the army of honest men to come. Before that jury we 
 summon you." 
 
 11. Phillips here speaks with sarcasm of the strange change 
 which death produces in the way a man is talked about, 
 evidently having Webster and Clay still in mind. " Their 
 friends rake up every word they ever contrived to whisper in 
 a corner for liberty, and parade it before the world. When 
 their friends bury them, they feel what bitter mockery, fifty 
 years hence, any epitaph will be, if it cannot record of one 
 living in this era some service rendered to the slaves." 
 
 12. Was this sufficient defence for his denunciation of Web- 
 ster and Clay ? 
 
 13. For account of Lundy's work, see Wilson's Rise and Fall 
 of the Slave Power, vol. i. 
 
WENDELL PHILLIPS. 417 
 
 14. Adams while a member of the United States Senate had 
 supported the Non-Importation Act and the Embargo, in 1807- 
 1808, and had broken with the Federalist party in support of 
 Jefferson's administration. The Massachusetts Legislature 
 admistered a rebuke by electing his successor a year before 
 Adams' time expired, and passed resolutions strongly con- 
 demning the Embargo. This was practically asking Adams 
 to resign, which he did. Morse says many descendants of the 
 old Federalists in Massachusetts "still cherish the ancestral 
 prejudice." See Morse's Life of J. Q. Adams, pp. 57, 58. 
 
 15. See Note 9 on Sumner's speech, p. 428. 
 
 1 6. The omission contains a few sentences in further tribute 
 to Rantoul. 
 
 17. This refers to Sumner's speech on the Repeal of the 
 Fugitive Slave Law. See p. 268. 
 
 1 8. An omitted paragraph gives recognition of the services 
 to the anti-slavery cause of Joshua R. Giddings. 
 
 19. The omission includes a few lines more on the influence 
 of the church organizations. The individual member who was 
 independent of them was rare. " The Methodist priesthood 
 brings the Catholic very vividly to mind." 
 
 20. In two paragraphs omitted here Phillips claims that J. 
 Q. Adams and Christian bodies in Great Britain endorsed this 
 policy toward the Church. He mentions, also, the services of 
 the Abolitionists in pressing upon the attention of the country 
 the facts and suggestions coming from British Emancipation 
 in the West Indies. 
 
 21. He continues to discuss at some length the Abolitionists* 
 conduct toward the Church, attempting their justification. He 
 criticises the attitude of Lyman Beecher, and quotes Mr. Piils- 
 
 VOL. II. 27 
 
41 8 NOTES. 
 
 bury, an Abolitionist, who said that the theatres would receive 
 the gospel of anti-slavery truth earlier than the churches ; con- 
 siders the influence of Uncle Tom's Cabin in the story and on 
 the stage ; and quotes at length from Dr. Channing's expres- 
 sive appreciation of the services of the Abolitionists. See 
 Phillips' Speeches, vol. i., pp. 126-134. 
 
 22. Compare with Burke's remark that '* prudence is the 
 highest of political virtues." 
 
 23. He appeals to his audience to stand by Garrison, " to 
 do nothing to weaken his influence " ; and he asserts that for 
 practical purposes Abolitionists and other anti-slavery men are 
 at one. 
 
 24. This refers to the speech of Sumner in Faneuil Hall, 
 which Phillips is comparing in spirit with the one made in the 
 Senate. See Summer's Works, vol. iii. The omission here 
 contains a brief criticism of Sumner's Fugitive Slave Speech, 
 in that it contained " no protest against the surrender itself." 
 44 It was under no such uncertain trumpet that the anti-slavery 
 host was originally marshalled." 
 
 25. Phillips here engages in criticism of Mann, Sumner, 
 Giddings, and the Free Soilers for their inconsistency, as he 
 saw it, of professing loyalty to the " higher law " while swear- 
 ing to support the Constitution which sustains slavery 4t where 
 it is." He quotes the Free Soil position, as voiced by Sumner 
 and Giddings, to the effect that it would be sufficient if the 
 National Government would withdraw itself from all participa- 
 tion in support of slavery. This ultimatum would not satisfy 
 Phillips. If there was a conflict between the " higher law" 
 and the Constitution Phillips insisted upon the repudiation of 
 the Constitution. 
 
 16. Consider the effect of this position upon the South. 
 
WENDELL PHILLIPS. 419 
 
 27. Was this the feeling of the South in 1861 ? Was there 
 reason for their feeling so ? 
 
 28. He continues to combat the doctrine of Giddings ; refers 
 to J. Q. Adams' speech against Giddings' view, ten years be- 
 fore, in reply to Ingersoll. " Whoever, therefore, lays the 
 flattering unction to his soul, that, while slavery exists any- 
 where in the United States, our legislators will sit down like a 
 band of brothers unless they are all slave-holding brothers 
 is doomed to find himself wofully mistaken." He held that 
 it was "impossible for free States and slave States to unite 
 under any form of Constitution, no matter how clean the 
 parchment may be, without the compact resulting in new 
 strength to the slave system. It is the unimpaired strength of 
 Massachusetts and New York and the youthful vigor of Ohio 
 that even now enables bankrupt Carolina to hold up the insti- 
 tution." Phillips was, therefore, opposed to a union with 
 slave-holders ; and he held that the common government of 
 the States must be used in behalf of the slaves. 
 
 29. He quotes Milton, indicating how their Northern states- 
 men shrink to pygmean forms when they go to Washington. 
 He extols and criticises Sumner. "It is not his honor nor 
 mine that is at issue ; nor his feeling nor mine that is to be 
 consulted. . . . Truth, success, victory, triumph over 
 the obstacles that beset us, this is all either of us wants." 
 
 30. He indulges in another brief fling at Webster. 
 
 31. Phillips cites an example to show that Americans travel- 
 ling abroad are beset by inquiries about the progress of eman- 
 cipation. There was no rest from the agitation. 
 
 32. He here urges as a proof of the statesmanship and sagacity 
 of the Abolitionists, that they " had taken the country by the 
 
420 NOTES. 
 
 four comers, and shaken it until you can hear nothing but 
 slavery." 
 
 33. This suggests an interesting question for argumentation : 
 Was Garrison a statesman ? 
 
 34. Did the annexation of Texas and the Fugitive Slave 
 Law lead the slavery cause to ruin ? 
 
 CHARLES SUMNER. 
 
 i. Charles Sumner was born in Boston, Massachusetts, 
 January 6, 1811. He entered Harvard in 1826 and gradu- 
 ated in 1830. He devoted himself for another year to reading 
 and study. His first interest in public affairs was excited by 
 the Anti-Masonic movement, which he held to be a "great and 
 good cause." In 1831 he entered the Harvard Law School, 
 where he became a student of Judge Joseph Story. Story 
 became very much attached to Sumner and was his friend 
 throughout life. At this time Sumner was six feet two 
 inches high and weighed 120 pounds. He was not per- 
 sonally attractive, but his intellectual industry and his 
 memory were something extraordinary. Sumner became in- 
 terested very early in the anti-slavery movement, was a sub- 
 scriber to the Liberator in its early years, and was a friend of 
 Phillips, Garrison, and Channing. He spent the years from 
 1837 to 1840 abroad, studying diligently and observing care- 
 fully, in London, Paris, Rome, Berlin, and other European 
 centres. In 1841, Sumner upheld the right of Great Britain to 
 stop any suspected slaver to ascertain whether she had the 
 right to carry the American flag, and he condemned Webster's 
 correspondence on the *' Creole Case." During this time, and 
 up to 1848, Sumner was a Whig ; John Quincy Adams was 
 
CHARLES SUMNER. 421 
 
 the statesman whom he most admired. Though much inter- 
 ested in the slavery agitation, he had not much interest in 
 other questions of national politics. On July 4, 1845, he de- 
 livered a notable oration before the civil authorities of Boston 
 on " The True Grandeur of Nations " a plea for peace and 
 a denunciation of war. His first anti-slavery speech was made 
 November 4, 1845, against the admission of Texas. Sumner 
 was not a Garrisonian Abolitionist, but he held, as we see 
 from the speech in this volume, that the Constitution was an 
 instrument of national liberty and must be so construed as to 
 make slavery sectional and freedom national. 
 
 In September, 1846, at the Whig State Convention, Sumner 
 spoke on " The Anti-Slavery Duties of the Whig Party." He 
 sent a copy of this speech to Webster and tried to induce that 
 statesman to become the leader of the Whigs as an Anti-Slavery 
 party which Webster politely declined to do. Sumner opposed 
 the Mexican War, and in a public letter to Robert C. Winthrop, 
 then a representative in Congress from Boston, he severely 
 censured that gentleman for his vote in support of the war. 
 In September, 1847, Sumner made his last Whig speech, in 
 support of a resolution at the Whig State Convention, that 
 Massachusetts Whigs should support only an anti-slavery man 
 for the presidency. The resolution was lost, and, on the 
 nomination of General Taylor, Sumner, John A. Andrew, E. 
 Rockwood Hoar, Charles Francis Adams, and others withdrew 
 from the Whig party and formed the Free Soil party. " On 
 the 5th of November, 1850, his speech after the passage of the 
 Fugitive Slave Law, was like a war-cry for the Free Soil party 
 and was said to have made him Senator."* He was elected 
 senator by a combination of Democrats and Free Setters, 
 against Robert C. Winthrop, after a long contest in the Legis- 
 lature. He refused to modify his public utterances in order 
 
 * Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography. 
 
422 NOTES. 
 
 to get votes, and he went to the Senate as uncompromising an 
 opponent of slavery as Calhoun was its uncompromising advo- 
 cate. The speech of our text was his first notable effort in the 
 Senate and it secured for Sumner a front rank among the 
 national anti-slavery leaders. From this time forward to the 
 end of the conflict Sumner was recognized as the " most un- 
 sparing, the most feared, and the most hated opponent of 
 slavery in Congress. After the brutal assault upon him by 
 Brooks, May 20, 1856, and his re-election to the Senate Janu- 
 ary 13, 1857, Sumner was absent four years from the Senate 
 Chamber under medical treatment in Europe. He returned 
 to his seat in the Senate in 1860, and in the notable session of 
 1860-61 he was a strong opponent of any form of compromise. 
 After the withdrawal of the Southern Senators, Sumner became 
 chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. His speech 
 on the 'Trent Affair,' January 9, 1862, is one of his ablest 
 productions and placed the surrender of Mason and Slidell on 
 the most acceptable ground, on principles always maintained 
 by the United States. Sumner opposed Johnson's reconstruc- 
 tion policy and favored the President's impeachment. In 1870 
 he opposed President Grant's policy of acquiring Santo Do^ 
 mingo. This led to a rupture with the President and his Re- 
 publican colleagues in the Senate and the latter displaced him 
 from the chairmanship of the Foreign Affairs Committee. 
 With Senators Trumbull, Schurz, and Fenton, Sumner became 
 an Anti-Grant Republican in 1872 and supported Horace 
 Greeley for the presidency. Thereafter he pursued an in- 
 dependent course in politics until his death, March n, 1874. 
 
 "Among American statesmen Sumner's life especially illus- 
 trates the truth he early expressed, that politics is but the 
 application of moral principles to public affairs. Throughout 
 his public career he was the distinctive representative of the 
 moral conviction and political purpose of New England. His 
 ample learning and varied accomplishments were rivalled 
 
CHARLES SUMNER. 423 
 
 among American public men only by those of John Quincy 
 Adams, and during all the fury of political passion in which 
 he lived there was never a whisper or suspicion of his political 
 honesty or his personal integrity. His profound conviction, 
 supreme conscientiousness, indomitable will, affluent resources, 
 and inability to compromise, his legal training, serious temper, 
 and untiring energy, were indispensable in the final stages of 
 the slavery controversy, and he had them all in the highest 
 degree. ' There is no other side,' he said to a friend with 
 fervor, and Cromwell's Ironsides did not ride into the fight 
 more absolutely persuaded that they were doing the will of 
 God than was Charles Sumner in the anti-slavery conflict." * 
 
 2. Historical Note : 
 
 The Fugitive Slave Act, signed by President Fillmore, Sep- 
 tember 18, 1850, was a part of the original " Omnibus Bill " 
 and was one of the essential features of the compromise meas- 
 ures. Its chief provisions may be summarized as follows : 
 
 1. The powers of the judges under the act of 1793 were 
 given to United States Commissioners. These might be in- 
 creased by the United States Courts to afford ample facilities 
 for the arrest of fugitives. 
 
 2. The Commissioners were to have concurrent jurisdic- 
 tion with United States judges in giving certificates to claim- 
 ants and ordering the removal of fugitives. 
 
 3. United States Marshalls and Deputies were required to 
 execute writs under the act under penalty of $1000. The 
 Marshall was liable for the full value of the slave in his 
 custody ; the officers were empowered to call the bystanders to 
 help execute writs, and all citizens were required to aid when 
 called. 
 
 * See Appleton's Cyclopaedia of American Biography. The 
 sketch in this Cyclopaedia was prepared by George William 
 Curtis. 
 
424 
 
 NOTES, 
 
 4. On affidavit of a claimant the Court or Commissioner 
 might give him a certificate of authority to remove his fugitive 
 slave. In no case was the testimony of the fugitive to be ad- 
 mitted, the certificate being conclusive evidence of the claim- 
 ant's title. This cut off the privilege of habeas corpus from 
 the fugitive. No process could be issued by judge, court, or 
 magistrate, to obstruct the owner. 
 
 5. The fee of the Commissioner was $10.00 when a certifi- 
 cate of ownership was granted, $5.00 when it was denied. 
 
 6. Obstructing arrest, attempting a rescue, harboring a 
 slave, were punishable by imprisonment for six months, a fine 
 of $1000, and civil damages of $1000 to the claimant. 
 
 7. On affidavit by a claimant that he feared a rescue, the 
 Marshall was not to surrender the fugitive to the claimant, but 
 was to take him to the State line whence he escaped, employ- 
 ing all necessary force. This made the United States the 
 direct carrier of the slave and responsible for his return. 
 
 " The mere statement of the provisions of this law," says 
 Rhodes, ' ' is its condemnation. It was a maxim among Roman 
 lawyers that if a question arose about the civil status of an in- 
 dividual, he was presumed to be free until proved to be a 
 slave. The burden of proof lay on the master, the benefit or 
 the doubt was on the side of the weaker party. Under this 
 act of ours the negro had no chance ; the meshes of the law 
 were artfully contrived to aid the master and entrap the slave. 
 It seems amazing that recent legislation in Christian America 
 on this vital point went backward from pagan Rome, and it is 
 almost impossible to portray the spirit of the time in a manner 
 that shall enable us to make allowance for the men who passed 
 this act." History of the United States ; vol. i., p. 186. 
 
 The enforcement of this law was a difficult matter in the 
 North and notable instances of resistance soon occurred. The 
 rescue of Shadrach and the rendition of Sims in Boston, the 
 " Jerry Rescue " in Syracuse, New York, the Gorsuch Case in 
 
CHARLES SUMNER. 425 
 
 Pennsylvania, all of these,* which had occurred before the 
 time for Sumner's speech, had aroused opposition and excite- 
 ment. Public meetings had been held and resolutions passed 
 denouncing the act. Emerson voiced the feeling of the 
 Abolitionists when he said : " The act of Congress of Septem- 
 ber 18, 1850, is a law which every one of you will break on the 
 earliest occasion, a law which no man can obey, or abet the 
 obeying, without loss of self-respect and forfeiture of the name 
 of a gentleman." 
 
 When Sumner's term in the Senate began, March 4, 1851, 
 the Compromise measures had become law, and the leaders 
 and politicians of both parties were seeking to quiet agitation 
 and discussion, and to have the country accept the compro- 
 mises, the Fugitive Slave Law included, as a " finality." In the 
 long session of the Senate, 1851-1852, the first of Mr. Sumner's 
 service, he waited a long time in vain for an opportunity to 
 speak in opposition to the Fugitive Slave Law. He had 
 spoken vigorously in opposition to this law in Faneuil Hall, 
 Boston, in November, 1850,! a speech which, his opponents 
 said, encouraged violence and resistance to the law. It was 
 the policy of the upholders of slavery and of the compromises 
 to prevent Sumner's addressing the Senate on this subject. 
 The session of Congress was devoid of interest, devoted chiefly 
 to president making. On May 26, 1852, Sumner presented a 
 memorial from the Society of Friends in New England, pray- 
 ing for the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Law. The memorial 
 was laid on the table and Sumner's plea that he should be 
 heard went unheeded. On July 2yth he offered a resolution 
 ** instructing the Committee on the Judiciary to report a bill 
 for immediate repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act. " On the 28th 
 he made an earnest plea for a hearing. He said : ' ' For the 
 
 * See Rhodes' United States History, vol. i., ch. 3. 
 
 f For this speech see SumnerS* Works \ vol. ii. , pp. 378-424. 
 
426 NOTES. 
 
 sake of these constituents, for my own sake, I now desire to 
 be heard. Make such disposition of my resolution afterward 
 as to you shall seem best ; visit upon me any degree of criticism, 
 censure, or displeasure ; but do not refuse me a hearing. 
 'Strike, but hear.'" An interesting debate followed on this 
 request, but the Senate refused to consider the resolution by a 
 vote of 32 to 10. " Want of time," *' danger to the Union," 
 "lateness of the session," were the chief reasons urged. 
 
 But Sumner was determined to be heard. His opportunity 
 came on August 26th, only four days before the adjournment 
 of Congress. The circumstances introducing the speech are 
 indicated on the opening page of the Speech, p. Sumner's 
 motion was clearly in order and it opened the whole question. 
 " Before speaking, he was approached by several who asked 
 Aim to give up his purpose, or at least, if he spoke, not to 
 divide the Senate. To all he replied, that, God willing, he 
 should speak, and would press the question to a vote, if he 
 were left alone." * 
 
 For several months Whigs and Democrats had been casting 
 the charge of sectionalism against any one who ventured to 
 speak publicly against slavery. Sumner had been attempting 
 to turn this party charge against his opponents. He had 
 announced that "freedom, not slavery, is national ; while 
 slavery not freedom, is sectional." This expression was the 
 shibboleth of his party, and it expresses the main subject and 
 purpose of this speech. 
 
 3. Sumner here quotes Mississippi and Kentucky decisions 
 to show that slavery exists only by local law. 
 
 4. In this omission, of considerable length, Sumner sets 
 forth the principles in the interpretation of the Constitution, 
 by which he contended that the Constitution nowhere sup- 
 
 * Edition of Sumner s Works, vol. iii., p. 89. 
 
CHARLES SUMNER. 427 
 
 ported slavery ; that it was an anti-slavery document. Sum- 
 ner's position was that slavery could be successfully opposed, 
 restricted, and finally abolished, on constitutional grounds. 
 The matters which he brought forward, as in favor of freedom, 
 were : i. The preamble. 2. Contemporaneous declarations, 
 in the Convention of 1787. 3. The Constitution is to be con- 
 strued as a whole, and ' ' The grand political acts of the nation 
 are to be construed together " ; these committed the nation to 
 freedom. 4. "In any question under the Constitution every 
 word must be construed in favor of liberty." 5. " The Consti- 
 tution acts upon slaves as persons, not as property," quoted 
 from Justice McLean, in the case of Groves et al. vs. Slaughter 
 (15 Peters, 507, 508). 
 
 5. He quotes from Washington in favor of emancipation, 
 and in favor of a society to promote that end. 
 
 6. In this omission of several pages Sumner shows that the 
 churches, colleges, and literature of the land joined in the 
 national condemnation of slavery at the time of the formation 
 of the Constitution. The discussions in the State Conven- 
 tions which adopted the Constitution showed the same senti- 
 ment against slavery. He appeals to the tenth amendment 
 to the Constitution as a protection to the people against " all 
 assumptions of the National government in derogation of free- 
 dom." No law of the Federal Government extending beyond 
 the power granted by the Constitution could be binding. 
 Sumner held the Fugitive Slave Law to be such. " No power 
 had been delegated to Congress to make a slave or support a 
 system of slavery." 
 
 7. In the way of historical criticism the student will be in- 
 terested in examining these passages from Sumner in connec- 
 tion with opinions from certain historical writers. Was the 
 fugitive slave clause essential to the adoption of the Constitu- 
 
428 NOTES. 
 
 tion ? Was it, at the time, looked upon as an important feature 
 of the compromises of that instrument ? Elaine says : " If it 
 had not been agreed that fugitives from service should be 
 returned to their owners, the Thirteen States would not have 
 been able in 1787 ' to form a more perfect union.'" Twenty 
 Years of Congress, vol. i., p. I. Rhodes says : " It is un- 
 questionable that this stipulation (Fugitive Slave clause) was 
 necessary for the adoption and acceptance of the Constitu- 
 tion." History of United States Since sSjo. 
 
 In historical criticism on this subject the student should 
 consult, in addition to the foregoing passages from Sumner, 
 
 Curtis' History of the Constitution, vol. ii., p. 451. 
 
 Benton's Thirty Years' View, vol. ii., p. 773. 
 
 Stephens' War Between the States, vol. i., p. 202. 
 
 Professor Alexander Johnston in The New Princeton Review, 
 vol. iv., p. 183. 
 
 Elliot's Debates, vol. v., pp. 487, 492, 550, 553 ; vol. iv., 
 pp. 176, 286. 
 
 The Decision in Prigg vs. Pennsylvania, cited in Thayer's 
 Cases on Constitutional Law, vol. i., pp. 476-479. 
 
 8. For the circumstances leading to the enactment of the 
 first Fugitive Slave Act, of 1793, see Rhodes' History of the 
 United States, vol. i., p. 24. 
 
 9. In the decision in Prigg vs. Pennsylvania the Supreme 
 Court held that the rendition of the fugitive slave was a 
 national function. In 1826 Pennsylvania passed an act to pre- 
 vent kidnapping, and extended its provisions to fugitive slaves 
 who had taken refuge in that State. The act provided a mode 
 for the rendition of fugitives, and forbade any other mode as 
 a felony. In 1832 Prigg, an agent for a Maryland slave- 
 owner, claimed a negro woman in Pennsylvania as a slave. 
 The claim being denied by the local magistrate, Prigg carried 
 the woman off by force. He was tried and convicted of kid- 
 
CHARLES SUMMER. 429 
 
 napping in York County, Pennsylvania, voluntarily submitting 
 to judgment in order to get the case as a test before the 
 Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed 
 the judgment of the lower court, and Prigg appealed the case 
 to the United States Supreme Court. The decision of this 
 Court set forth the following points : 
 
 1. Congress has the exclusive right to legislate concerning 
 the rendition of fugitive slaves. 
 
 2. In the presence of such legislation by Congress the States 
 have no right to legislate either in aid of or against rendition. 
 Pennsylvania's law was, therefore, void. 
 
 3. The right of the owner to recapture his slave was given 
 by the Constitution without restriction, where he could do so 
 without violence or breach of the peace. This led to State 
 restrictions, Personal Liberty Laws, guarding the peace and 
 protecting the citizen against violence. 
 
 4. The United States could not compel State Courts to 
 enforce United States laws by State magistrates, as the law of 
 1793 assumed to do, but must depend upon its own courts and 
 officers. This left the old law ineffective, while indicating 
 that a more efficient law for the recovery of fugitive slaves 
 would be constitutional. See Supreme Court Decision, cited 
 in the text of the speech ; Schouler's United States History, 
 vol. iv., pp. 428-429 ; Thayer's Cases on Constitutional Law, 
 vol. i. 
 
 10. Sumner here quotes from the Life of Story to sustain 
 his contention on this point. He also quotes from President 
 Jackson, in his memorable veto, in 1832, of the 2d United 
 States Bank. To Jackson's opinion was opposed a decision 
 of the Supreme Court. Jackson's famous position was that 
 " each public officer who takes an oath to support the Consti- 
 tution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and 
 not as it is understood by others." Sumner's conclusion was 
 
430 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 that ' ' the early legislation of Congress and the decisions of 
 the Supreme Court cannot stand in our way." 
 
 11. Sumner argues at some length, in the omission, that no 
 power had been delegated to Congress to legislate on the 
 subject of fugitive slaves ; that the fugitive slave clause of the 
 Constitution was merely an article of compact without an 
 accompanying grant of power. He argued from Article IV., 
 Section I, of the Constitution : " Full Faith and Credit shall 
 be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judi- 
 cial proceedings of every other State." If the article had 
 contained only so much, as some in the Convention favored 
 limiting it, it would have been merely a matter of compact, 
 and Congress would not have had power in the matter. But 
 the article continues : " And the Congress may by general 
 laws prescribe the manner in which such Acts, Records, and 
 Proceedings shall be proved and the effect thereof." No such 
 grant of power accompanied the fugitive slave clause. To 
 sustain Sumner's argument on this point one must accept the 
 compact theory as to this clause of the Constitution, a theory 
 which the Supreme Court decision in Prigg vs. Pennsylvania 
 had discarded and denied. It was for this reason, chiefly, that 
 Chief-Justice Taney had dissented from that decision. 
 
 12. He quotes Jefferson, in the familiar language of the 
 Resolutions of 1798, defining the General Government as a 
 compact, of certain definite powers, and asserting that when- 
 ever it " assumed undelegated powers, its acts are unauthori- 
 tative, void and of no force." It is interesting to observe 
 how the anti-slavery Free Soilers and Republicans, in order 
 to save themselves from national legislation in support of 
 slavery, fell back on the compact theory of the government 
 and the reserved rights of the States. 
 
 13. In the omission, of considerable length, Sumner quotes 
 precedents and decisions, discusses the nature of common law, 
 
CHARLES SUMNER. 431 
 
 referring to English precedents and endeavors to show that a 
 claim for a fugitive slave was embraced in that class of judicial 
 proceedings. 
 
 14. Sumner quotes at length Colonial and Revolutionary 
 declarations against the Stamp Act. That unconstitutional 
 measure " was welcomed in the Colonies by the Tories of that 
 day precisely as the unconstitutional Slave Act is welcomed by 
 large and imperious numbers among us." But patriotism 
 resisted it. He quotes Pitt, who " rejoiced that America had 
 resisted," and urged that the Stamp Act be repealed, abso- 
 lutely, totally, and immediately." This line of Sumner's 
 argument was to justify the anti-slavery resistance to the Fugi- 
 tive Slave Law which had been manifested. 
 
 15. Sumner here quotes Senator Butler, of South Carolina, 
 and President Washington, to support his position that no law 
 should be insisted on which is altogether out of harmony with 
 the sentiment of the people among whom it is to be executed. 
 He cites recent instances to show that the Fugitive Slave Law 
 could not be enforced. 
 
 1 6. He eulogizes this spirit of opposition to slavery, and 
 vindicates it by classical and historical illustrations. 
 
 17. "But I am asked what I offer as a substitute for the 
 legislation which I denounce ? " In the omission Sumner 
 speaks in answer to this question. He pronounces the fugi- 
 tive slave clause purely a compact. " Each Slate in the exer- 
 cise of its own judgment, will determine for itself the precise 
 extent of the obligations assumed" Sumner conceded that the 
 States were prohibited from discharging a fugitive from ser- 
 vice, but he held that the State was entitled to determine the 
 mode by which he was to be " delivered up." This should be 
 done only after carefully guarding personal liberty, the fugi- 
 tive must be surrounded with " every shield of Law and Con- 
 
432 NOTES. 
 
 stitution." In any event, the proceeding should be by " suit 
 at common law," including the rights of habeas corpus and 
 Trial by Jury. See Phillip's interpretation of this, p. 255. 
 
 18. Compare this with Seward's assertion of *' the higher 
 law." 
 
 19. He quotes from the fathers of the Church to the effect 
 that unjust and unrighteous laws are not binding, a principle 
 not confined to the Church. Cicero sustained the same view, 
 that an unjust law is null. " The conscience of each person is 
 the final arbiter," says Sumner. 
 
 20. Sumner spoke for three hours and three quarters. At 
 the conclusion of his speech a debate ensued engaged in by 
 many Senators, Northern and Southern. Mr. Clemens, of 
 Alabama, Mr. Badger, of North Carolina, and Mr. Weller, 
 of California, especially attacked Sumner. Badger quoted 
 extensively from Sumner's Faneuil Hall Speech of November, 
 1850,* charging Sumner with responsibility for lawless sedi- 
 tion. He was vigorously arraigned by other Senators, many 
 of the attacks dealing in personalities. Senators Hale and 
 Chase spoke in his defence. Chase said : 
 
 " The argument which my friend from Massachusetts has 
 addressed to us to-day was not an assault upon the Constitu- 
 tion. It was a noble vindication of that great charter of gov- 
 ernment from the perversions of the advocates of the Fugitive 
 Slave Act. . . . What has the Senator from Massachu- 
 setts asserted ? That the fugitive servant clause of the Con- 
 stitution is a clause of compact between the States, and 
 confers no legislative power upon Congress. He has arrayed 
 history and reason in support of this proposition ; and I avow 
 my conviction, now and here, that, logically and historically, 
 his argument is impregnable, entirely impregnable. . . . 
 
 * See Sumner's Works, vol. ii. 
 
CHARLES SUMNER. 433 
 
 " Let me add, Mr. President, that in my judgment the speech 
 of my friend from Massachusetts will mark AN ERA in Ameri- 
 can history. It will distinguish the day when the advocates 
 of that theory of governmental policy, and constitutional con- 
 struction which he has so ably defended and so brilliantly 
 illustrated, no longer content to stand on the defensive in the 
 contest with Slavery, boldly attacked the very citadel cf its 
 power, in that doctrine of finality which two of the political 
 parties of the country, through their national organizations, 
 are endeavoring to establish as the impregnable defence of its 
 usurpations." 
 
 The amendment of Sumner was rejected by a vote of 47 to 4. 
 Chase, Wade, Hale, and Sumner were the only ones voting in 
 its favor. See Sumner's Works t vol. iii. ; Congressional Globe^ 
 May-August, 1852. 
 
 VOL. II. 28 
 
THE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA CRUZ 
 
 This book is due on the last DATE stamped below. 
 
 12,'70(Pl251s8)2373-3A,l