# The History of Slavery and the Slave Trade/Chapter 27

Contents
CHAPTER XXVII.
Period from 1820 to 1835. — Political History of Slavery.
The census of 1820 exhibits a slave population of 1,538,038, being an increase of 346,674 for the ten years since 1810, a rate of about 30 per cent.
CENSUS OF 1820 — SLAVE POPULATION. :
| Alabama | 41,879 | Missouri | 10,222 |
| District of Columbia | 6,377 | New Jersey | 7,557 |
| Connecticut | 97 | New York | 10,088 |
| Delaware | 4,509 | North Carolina | 205,017 |
| Georgia | 149,654 | Pennsylvania | 211 |
| Illinois | 917 | Rhode Island | 48 |
| Indiana | 190 | South Carolina | 258,475 |
| Kentucky | 126,732 | Tennessee | 80,107 |
| Louisiana | 69,064 | Virginia | 425,153 |
| Maryland | 107,397 | Arkansas Territory | 1,617 |
| Mississippi | 32,814 | Aggregate, 1,538,038. | Aggregate, 1,538,038. |
Slavery was fast decreasing in what are now the free states, except in Illinois; it had also decreased in Maryland. The increase in Virginia for the last decade ​had been only 8 per cent.; in North Carolina 21, and in South Carolina 31 per cent The rapid settlement of the southwest had stimulated the domestic slave-trade, and the market was supplied chiefly from Maryland and Virginia, which accounts for the decrease in the former, and the small increase in the latter state. Slavery in Tennessee had increased 79 per cent.; in Mississippi 92, and in Louisiana 99 per cent.
At the session of 1824-6, Mr. King, senator from New York, offered a resolution proposing to appropriate, after the payment of the public debt, the eds of the sales of public lands, to aid in the emancipation of slaves, and also the colonizing of free people of color without the limits of the United States. This resolution was never called up by the mover, being intended, as was supposed, merely for record as his opinion. Similar propositions were sent to congress by state legislatures in the form of resolutions. About the same time, Mr. Wirt, attorney-general of the United States, gave an official opinion that a law of South Carolina, authorizing the imprisonment of colored mariners, was unconstitutional. These acts took place at the time of the famous controversy between governor Troup, of Georgia, and the general government, in reference to the removal of the Creek Indians; and the governor, in convening a special session of the legislature, directed attention to them in his message. As the proceedings of the governor and his legislature were not productive of any brilliant results, they are only referred to as to something especially ludicrous.
These acts of Mr. King and Mr. Wirt, were pronounced by the governor in his message, "officious and impertinent intermeddlings with our domestic concerns." The doctrine of the attorney-general, if sanctioned by the supreme court, "would make it quite easy for congress, by a short decree, to divest this entire interest, without cost to themselves of one dollar, or of one acre of public land. If the government of the United States wishes a principle established which it dare not establish for itself, a cause made before the supreme court, and the principle once settled, the act of congress follows of course. One movement of congress unresisted by you, and all is lost. Temporize no longer, make known your resolution, that this subject shall not be touched by them but at their peril. If this matter (slavery) be an evil, it is our own; if it be a sin, we can implore the forgiveness of it. To remove it we ask not either their sympathy or assistance. It may be our physical weakness — it is our moral strength. If, like the Greeks and Romans, we cease to be masters, we are slaves. I entreat you most earnestly, now that it is not too late, to step forth, and, having exhausted the argument, to stand by your arms."
This subject was referred to a select committee, who presented to the house a report responding to the feelings and sentiments of the governor. "The hour is come," says the committee, "or is rapidly approaching, when the states, from Virginia to Georgia, from Missouri to Louisiana, must confederate, and, as one man, say to the Union: We will no longer submit our retained rights to the sniveling insinuations of bad men on the floor of congress — our constitutional rights to the dark and strained construction of designing men upon ​judicial benches; that we detest the doctrine, and disclaim the principle, of unlimited submission to the general government.
"Let our northern brethern, then, if there is no peace in union, if the compact has become too heavy to be longer borne, in the name of all the mercies, find peace among themselves. Let them continue to rejoice in their self-righteousness; let them bask in their own elysium, while they depict all south of the Potomac as a hideous reverse. As Athens, as Sparta, as Rome was, we will be: they held slaves; we hold them. Let the north, then, form national roads for themselves; let them guard with tariffs their own interest; let them deepen their public debt until a high-minded aristocracy shall arise out of it. We want none of all those blessings. But in the simplicity of the patriarchal government, we would still remain master and servant under our own vine and our own fig tree, and confide for safety upon Him who, of old time, looked down upon this state of things without wrath."
The committee concluded their report with two resolutions, declaring their concurrence in the sentiments of the governor, and for the support of their determination to "stand by their arms," pledging their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor; and requesting the governor to forward copies of the resolutions to the governors of the several states, and to their own senators and representatives in congress.
On the next day, (June 7th, 1825,) another message was communicated, in which the governor again reverted to the resolutions of the state legislatures on the subject of slavery, and the acts of the individuals before mentioned; complained of the efforts that had been made to render unavailing the guaranties of the constitution; and concluded thus:
"The attorney-general, representing the United States, says before the supreme court, in a ripe and splendid argument, that slavery, being inconsistent with the laws of God and nature, can not exist. Do we want more? or shall we wait until the principle being decided against us, the execution issues, and the entire property is bought in from the proceeds of our public lauds? This is left to your decision. The United States can choose between our enmity and our love; and when you offer them the choice, you perform the last and holiest of duties. They have adopted a conceit; and if they love that more than they love us, they will cling to it and throw us off; but it will be written in your history, that you did not separate from your household without adopting the fraternal language: choose ye this day between our friendship and that worthless idol you have set up and worshiped."
Here the matter seems to have been dropped, as the subject of the Indian difficulties took the precedence, and kept the governor in a comfortable sweat until the close of 1827.
An attempt was made during Mr. Adams' administration to effect an arrangement with Great Britain for the surrender of fugitive slaves taking refuge in the Canadian provinces. By a resolution of the nouse of representatives, May 10, 1828, the president was requested to open a negotiation with the British government for this purpose. On the 15th of December, in compliance ​with a resolution of the 8th, the president transmitted to the house the correspondence between the secretary of state and Mr. Gallatin, our minister at London, and Mr. Barbour, his successor. The following is an extract from the instructions of Mr. Clay to Mr. Gallatin:
"If it be urged that Great Britain would make, in agreeing to the proposed stipulation, a concession without an equivalent, there being no corresponding class of persons in her North American continental dominions, you will reply:
"1st. That there is a similar class in the British West Indies, and, although the instances are not numerous, some have occurred of their escape, or being brought, contrary to law, into the United States.
"2dly. That Great Britain would probably obtain an advantage over us in the reciprocal restoration of military and maritime deserters, which would compensate any that we might secure over her in the practical operation of an article for the mutual delivery of fugitives from labor.
"3dly. At all events, the disposition to cultivate good neighborhood, which such an article would imply, could not fail to find a compensation in that, or in some other way, in the already immense and still increasing intercourse between the two countries. The states of Virginia and Kentucky are particularly anxious on this subject. The general assembly of the latter has repeatedly invoked the interposition of the government of the United States with Great Britain. You will, therefore, press the matter whilst there exists any prospect of your obtaining a satisfactory arrangement of it. Perhaps the British government, whilst they refuse to come under any obligation by treaty, might be willing to give directions to the colonial authorities to afford facilities for the recovery of fugitives from labor; or, if they should not be disposed to disturb such as have heretofore taken refuge in Upper Canada, they might be willing to interdict the entry of any others in future."
These considerations were not deemed sufficiently weighty to induce the English government to make the desired concession.
A petition from the citizens of the District of Columbia was presented to congress at the session of 1821-28, praying for the prospective abolition of slavery in the district, and for the repeal of those laws which authorize the selling of supposed runaways for their prison fees or maintenance. The petitioners declare slavery among them to be "an evil of serious magnitude, which greatly impairs the prosperity and happiness of the district, and to cast the reproach of inconsistency upon the free institutions established among us." They represent the domestic slave-trade at the seat of the national government as "scarcely less disgraceful iu its character, and even more demoralizing in its influence," than the foreign slave-trade, which is declared piracy, and punishable with death. "Husbands and wives are separated; children are taken from their parents without regard to the ties of nature, and the most endearing bonds of affection are broken for ever."
It was mentioned also as a special grievance, that "some who were entitled to freedom had been sold into unconditional slavery." And they gave the case of a colored man who had been taken up as a runaway slave, imprisoned, and ​advertised; and no one appearing to claim him, lie was sold for life at public auction for the payment of his jail fees, and taken to the south. A stronger anti-slavery document has not in later years been presented to congress; nor did it receive any more efficient action than similar petitions have since received.
CENSUS OF 1830. — SLAVE POPULATION.
| District of Columbia | 6,119 | Mississippi | 65,659 |
| Delaware | 3,292 | Missouri | 25,091 |
| Florida | 15,501 | New Jersey | 2,254 |
| Georgia | 217,531 | North Carolina | 245,601 |
| Illinois | 747 | South Carolina | 315,401 |
| Kentucky | 165,213 | Tennessee | 141,603 |
| Louisiana | 109,588 | Virginia | 469,757 |
| Maryland | 102,994 | Arkansas | 4,576 |
| Alabama | 117,549 | Aggregate, 2,009,043. | Aggregate, 2,009,043. |
In 1833, the National Anti-Slavery Society was formed. Societies were also formed in all the northern states; in some of them, in almost every county. Meetings were held at the south denouncing these movements; and in the north attempts were made to suppress the anti-slavery meetings by violence. Meetings were also held in the north to express sympathy for the south, and to censure the "abolitionists." These anti-abolition meetings were gratifying to the people of the south. The proceedings of the Albany meeting were thus noticed by the Richmond Enquirer: "Amid these proceedings, we hail with delight the meeting and resolutions of Albany. They are up to the hub. They are in perfect unison with the rights and sentiments of the south. They are divested of all the metaphysics and abstractions of the resolutions of New York. They are free from all qualifications and equivocation — no idle denunciations of the evils of slavery — no pompous assertions of the right of discussion. But they announce in the most unqualified terms that it is a southern question, which belongs, under the federal compact, exclusively to the south. They denounce all discussions upon it in the other states, which, from their very nature, are calculated to 'inflame the public mind,' and put in jeopardy the lives and property of their fellow-citizens, as at war with every rule of moral duty, and every suggestion of humanity; and they reprobate the incendiaries who will persist in carrying them on, 'as disloyal to the Union.' They pronounce these vile incendiaries to be 'disturbers of the public peace.' They assure the south 'that the great body of the northern people entertain opinions similar to those expressed in these resolutions;' finally, 'that we plight to them our faith to maintain, in practice, so far as lies in our power, what we have thus solemnly declared.'
"We hail this plighted faith to arrest, by 'all constitutional and legal means,' the movements of these incendiaries. We hail these pledges with pleasure; and should it become necessary, we shall call upon them to redeem them in good faith, and to act, and to put down these disturbers of the peace."
"The Albany resolutions," said the Richmond Whig, "are far more acceptable than those of New York. They are unexceptionable in their general ​expressions towards the south, and in their views of the spirit and consequences of abolition; and they omit any specific recognition of the right of agitation. Nothing is wanting, indeed, but that which, being wanting, all the rest, we fear, is little more than a 'sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal.' We mean the recognition of the power of the legislature to suppress the fanatics, and the recommendation to do so. This is the substance asked of the north by their brethren of the south; and the recent manifesto of Tappan & Co. makes it plain that without it, nothing effective can be done; that without it, urgent remonstrances to these madmen to desist, and warm professions towards the south, avail not a whit. Up to the mark the north must come, if it would restore tranquility and preserve the union.
"The failure of the Albany meeting to enforce the expediency of legislative enactments, is ominous. There is reason to believe that strong appeals were made to the leaders from various points, perhaps from Richmond itself, to go as far as possible, and to adopt a resolution, conceding to the south its demand for legislative enactment. Political importance was attached to it from the circumstance that the immediate friends of Mr. Van Buren and his party leaders were to preside at the meeting, and thus that an intelligent sign might be given to the south, that he sustained her claim. We infer nothing against Mr. Yan Buren himself from the failure; but we do infer this, either that his Albany partisans reject the claim, or fear to encounter public opinion by adopting it. Either way it may be regarded as decisive of the fate of the demand itself, and as conclusive that nothing will be done by the state of New York to suppress the fanatics by law. New York is the hotbed of the sect; and nothing being done there, what may be done elsewhere will avail nothing."
The Philadelphia Inquirer said: "The south has called upon the north for action in relation to Garrison aud his co-workers: Philadelphia, at least, has responded to this call in a spirit of the utmost liberality. The resolutions adopted at the town meeting of Monday last not only denounce the recent movements of the abolitionists, but they expressly disclaim any 'right to interfere, directly or indirectly, with the subject of slavery in the southern states,' and aver that any action upon it by the people of the north would be not only a violation of the constitution, but a presumptuous infraction of the rights of the south; and further, one of them recommends to the legislature of this commonwealth to enact, at the next session, certain provisions to protect our fellow-citizens of the south from any incendiary movements within our borders, should any such hereafter be made. Are not these declarations to the point? Do they not cover the whole ground? Do they not go even farther than many of the resolutions passed at public meetings in the south?"
Despairing of seeing the progress of anti-slavery sentiment arrested by legislation, the south suggested the remedy of non-intercourse and disunion. In the resolutions of a public meeting in South Carolina, it was declared "that when the southern states are reduced to the alternative of choosing either union without liberty, or disunion with liberty and property, be assured they will not hesitate which to take, and will make the choice promptly, unitedly, and ​fearlessly." And it was unanimously resolved, "that should the non-slaveholding states omit or refuse, at the ensuing meeting of their respective legislatures, to put a final stop to the proceedings of their abolition societies against the domestic peace of the south, and effectually prevent any further interference by them with our slave population, by efficient penal laws, it will then become the solemn duty of the whole south, in order to protect themselves and secure their rights and property against the unconstitutional combination of the non-slaveholding states, and the murderous designs of their abolitionists, to withdraw from the union."
In relation to the suspension of commercial intercourse, the Richmond Whig said: "The suggestion of acting upon fanaticism by withholding the profits of southern commerce from those engaged, either actively or by countenance, in propagating its designs, is obtaining extensive popularity. A general persuasion prevails of its efficacy. It is an argument which will carry more Weight than appeals to justice, humanity, and fraternal affection. It is never lost to mankind. Through the purse is the surest road to the understandings of men; especially, so we have been taught to believe, to the understandings of those with whom the south is now contending. Southern commerce is essential to the north. Can the south be blamed for cutting off the resources employed to disturb its tranquility, and overthrow its institutions? Where is the illiberally? Where is the injustice? That all should suffer where a part only are guilty, is to be deplored but not avoided. When the innocent feel the consequences, they will be stimulated to more active steps for the suppression of the wretches who have wrought so much mischief and engendered so much bad feeling
"The merchants are well disposed to the experiment; but they say its success depends upon the country, not the cities. Without the coöperation of the country citizens — without they put their shoulders to the wheel, and discourage the custom of buying goods in the north — they can do nothing. They are ready to promise, and to fulfill the promise, that, if the country will buy their goods, they shall have them as cheap and as good as the northern markets now supply. Let none be alarmed by the silly and traitorous clamor put up about the Union. The articles of Union, we presume, do not inhibit the south from caring for its own safety, or promoting its own prosperity."
Application was made to the postmaster-general to interpose his authority to prevent the transmission, by mail, of anti-slavery papers and documents. In answer to a request of a meeting in Petersburg, Virginia, to adopt in his department some regulation to this effect, Mr Kendall, under date of August 20, 1835, said it was not in his power, by any lawful regulation, to obviate the evil. Such a power, if any necessity for it existed, ought not to be vested in the head of the executive department. He, however, regarded the transmission, through the mail, of papers "tending to promote discontent, sedition, and servile war, from one state to another, as a violation of the spirit, if not. the letter, of the federal compact, which would justify, on the part of the injured states, any measure necessary to effect their exclusion." For the ​present, the only means of relief was "in responsibilities voluntarily assumed by the postmasters." Ho hoped congress would, at the next session, put a stop to the evil, and pledged his exertions to promote the adoption of a measure for thai purpose.
Conceiving the principles and objects of anti-slavery associations to be misunderstood, the officers of the American anti-slavery society published in its defense the following address "to the public:"
"In behalf of the American anti-slavery society, we solicit the candid attention of the public to the following declaration of our principles and objects. Were the charges which are brought against us, made only by individuals who are interested in the continuance of slavery, and by such as are influenced solely by unworthy motives, this address would be unnecessary; but there are those who merit and possess our esteem, who would not voluntarily do us injustice, and who have been led by gross misrepresentations to believe that we are pursuing measures at variance, not only with the constitutional rights of the south, but with the precepts of humanity and religion. To such we offer the following explanations and assurances:
"1st. We hold that congress has no more right to abolish slavery in the southern states, than in the French West India islands. Of course we desire no national legislation on the subject.
"2d. We hold that slavery can only be lawfully abolished by the legislatures of the several states in which it prevails, and that the exercise of any other than moral influence to induce such abolition is unconstitutional.
"3d. We believe that congress has the same right to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, that the state governments have within their respective jurisdictions, and that it is their duty to efface so foul a blot from the national escutcheon.
"4th. We believe that American citizens have the right to express and publish their opinions of the constitution, laws, and institutions of any and every state and nation under heaven; and we mean never to surrender the liberty of speech, of the press, or of conscience — blessings we have inherited from our fathers, and which we intend, as far as we are able, to transmit unimpaired to our children.
"5th. We have uniformly deprecated all forcible attempts on the part of the slaves to recover their liberty. And were it in our power to address them, we would exhort them to observe a quiet and peaceful demeanor, and would assure them that no insurrectionary movements on their part would receive from us the slightest aid or countenance.
"6th. We would deplore any servile insurrection, both on account of the calamities which would attend it, and on account of the occasion which it might furnish of increased severity and oppression.
"7th. We are charged with sending incendiary publications to the south. If by the term incendiary is meant publications containing arguments and facts to prove slavery to be a moral and political evil, and that duty and policy require its immediate abolition, the charge is true. But if this charge is ​used to imply publications encouraging insurrection, and designed to excite the slaves to break their fetters, the charge is utterly and unequivocally, false. We beg our fellow-citizens to notice that this charge is made without proof, and by many who confess that they have never read our publications, and that those who make it, offer to the public no evidence from our writings in support of it
"8th. We are accused of sending our publications to the slaves, and it is asserted that their tendency is to excite insurrections. Both the charges are false. These publications are not intended for the slaves, and were they able to read them, they would find in them no encouragement to insurrection.
"9th. We are accused of employing agents in the slave states to distribute our publications. We have never had one such agent. We have sent no package of our papers to any person in those states for distribution, except to five respectable resident citizens, at their own request. But we have sent, by mail, single papers addressed to public officers, editors of newspapers, clergymen, and others. If, therefore, our object is to excite the slaves to insurrection, the masters are our agents.
"We believe slavery to be sinful, injurious to this and every other country in which it prevails; we believe immediate emancipation to be the duty of every slaveholder, and that the immediate abolition of slavery by those who have the right to abolish it, would be safe and wise. These opinions we have freely expressed, and we certainly have no intention to refrain from expressing them in future, and urging them upon the consciences and hearts of our fellow-citizens who hold slaves, or apologize for slavery.
"We believe the education of the poor is required by duty, and by a regard for the permanency of our republican institutions. There are thousands and tens of thousands of our fellow-citizens, even in the free states, sunk in abject poverty, and who, on account of their complexion, are virtually kept in ignorance, and whose instruction in certain cases is actually prohibited by law 1 We are anxious to protect the rights, and to promote the virtue and happiness of the colored portion of our population, and on this account we have been charged with a design to encourage intermarriages between whites and blacks. This charge has been repeatedly, and is now again denied, while we repeat that the tendency of our sentiments is to put an end to the criminal amalgamation that prevails wherever slavery exists.
"We are accused of acts that tend to a dissolution of the Union, and even of wishing to dissolve it. We have never 'calculated the value of the Union,' because we believe it to be inestimable, and that the abolition of slavery will remove the chief danger of its dissolution; and one of the many reasons why we cherish and will endeavor to preserve the constitution is, that it restrains congress from making any law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.
"Such, fellow-citizens, are our principles; are they unworthy of republicans and Christians? Or are they in truth so atrocious, that in order to prevent their diffusion you are yourselves willing to surrender, at the dictation of others, the invaluable privilege of free discussion — the very birthright of Americans? Will you, in order that the abominations of slavery may be concealed ​from public view, and that the capital of your republic may continue to be, 03 it now is, under the sanction of congress, the great slave mart of the American continent, consent that the general government, in acknowledged defiance of the constitution and laws, shall appoint throughout the length and breadth of your land, ten thousand censors of the press, each of whom shall have the right to inspect every document you may commit to the post-office, and to suppress every pamphlet and newspaper, whether religious or political, which b his sovereign pleasure he may adjudge to contain an incendiary article? Sure lv we need not remind you, that if you submit to such an encroachment on your liberties, the days of our republic are numbered, and that although abolitionists may be the first, they will not be the last victims offered at the shrine of arbitrary power."
Petitions from the free states praying for the abolition of slavery and the slave-trade in the District of Columbia were daily presented in congress. Southern members objected to receiving the petitions, as praying for an act that was unconstitutional — interference with the right of property without the consent of the owners; and also that such interference would be a violation of good faith with the states of Maryland and Virginia, which ceded the territory of the district to the general government. The discussion resulted in the adoption, by a large majority, February 8, 1836, of the following resolution of Mr. Pinckney, of South Carolina:
"Resolved, That all the memorials which have been offered, or which may hereafter be presented to this house, praying for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, and also the resolutions offered by an honorable memoer from Maine, (Mr. Jarvis,) with the amendment thereto proposed by an honorable member from Virginia, (Mr. Wise,) and every other paper or proposition that may be submitted in relation to that subject, be referred to a select committee, with instructions to report that congress possesses no constitutional authority to interfere in any way with the institution of slavery in any of the states of this confederacy; and that, in the opinion of this house, congress ought not to interfere in any way with slavery in the District of Columbia, because it would be a violation of the public faith, unwise, impolitic, and dangerous to the Union."
On the 18th of May, Mr. Pinckney, from the select committee appointed on his motion, reported three resolutions; the first denying the power of congress over slavery in the states; the second, declaring that congress ought not to interfere with it in the District of Columbia. The third, which was not contemplated by the instructions to the committee, required all petitions and papers relating to the subject, to be at once laid upon the table, without being printed or referred, and without any other action on them. On the 25th of May, the vote was taken on the first resolution, under the pressure of the previous question. Mr. Adams said, if the house would allow him five minutes, he would prove the resolution to be false. Eight members were understood to have voted in the negative: Messrs. Adams, Jackson and Phillips, of Mass., Everett and ​Slade, of Vt., Clark, Denny and Potts, of Penn. The second resolution was adopted the next day, 132 to 45; the third 117 to 68.
In the senate, the principal discussion on the disposal of abolition petitions was upon one from the society of the "Friends" in the state of Pennsylvania, adopted at the Cain quarterly meeting. It was presented the 11th of January, by Mr. Buchanan, who said he was in favor of giving the memorial a respectful reception; but he wished to put the question at rest. He should therefore move that the memorial be read, and that the prayer of the memorialists be rejected. The question on receiving the petition was, on the 9th of March, decided in the affirmative: ayes, 36; noes, 10; the latter all from southern senators. On the 11th, the whole subject, including the rejection of the petition, was agreed to, 34 to 6. Those who voted in the negative, were Messrs. Davis and Webster, from Mass., Prentiss, of Vt., Knight, of R. L, and Southard, of New Jersey.
But the most important action of the senate was upon a bill to prohibit the circulation of abolition publications by mail. The president had in his annual message called the attention of congress to the subject. He said: "I must also invite your attention to the painful excitement produced in the south, by attempts to circulate, through the mails, inflammatory appeals addressed to the passions of the slaves, in prints, and in various sorts of publications, calculated to stimulate them to insurrection, and to produce all the horrors of a servile war." He said it was "fortunate for the country, that the good sense and generous feeling of the people of the non-slaveholding states "were so strong" against the proceedings of the misguided persons who had engaged in these unconstitutional and wicked attempts, as to authorize the hope that these attempts will no longer be persisted in." But if these expressions or the public will should not effect the desirable result, he did "not doubt that the non-slaveholding states would exercise their authority in suppressing this interference with the constitutional rights of the south." And he would respectfully suggest the passing of a law that would "prohibit, under severe penalties, the circulation in the southern states, through the mail, of incendiary publications, intended to instigate the slaves to insurrection."
This part of the message was, on motion of Mr. Calhoun, referred to a select committee, which, in accordance with his wishes, was composed mainly of senators from the slaveholding states. They were Messrs. Calhoun, King, of Georgia, Mangum, Linn, and Davis; the last alone being from the free states. The report of the committee was made the 4th of February. Notwithstanding four-fifths of its members were southern, only Messers. Calhoun and Mangum were in favor of the entire report. The accompanying bill prohibited postmasters from knowingly putting into the mail any printed or written paper or pictorial representation relating to slavery addressed to any person in a state in which their circulation was forbidden; and it prohibited postmasters in such state from delivering such papers to any person not authorized by the laws of the state to receive them. And the postmasters of the offices where such papers were deposited, were required to give notice of the same from time to ​time; and if the papers were not, within one month withdrawn by the person depositing them, they were to be burnt or otherwise destroyed. Mr. Linn, though dissenting from parts of the report, approved the bill.
Mr. Calhoun, in his report, reiterated his favorite doctrine of state sovereignty; from which he deduced the inherent right of a state to defend itself against internal dangers; and he denied the right of the general government to assist a state, even in case of domestic violence, except on application of t lie authorities of the state itself. He said it belonged to the slaveholding states, whose institutions were in danger, and not to congress, as the message supposed, to determine what papers were incendiary; and he asserted the proposition, that each state was under obligation to prevent its citizens from disturbing the peace or endangering the security of other states; and that, in case of being disturbed or endangered, the latter had a right to demand of the former the adoption of measures for their protection. And if it should neglect its duty, the states whose peace was assailed might resort to means to protect themselves, as if they were separate and independent communities.
As motives to suppress by law the efforts of the abolitionists, the report mentioned the danger of their accomplishing their object, the abolition of slavery in the southern states, and the consequent evils which would attend it. It would destroy property to the amount of $950,000,000, and impoverish an entire section of the Union. By destroying the relation between the two races, the improvement of the condition of the colored people, now so rapidly going on, and by which they had been, both physically and intellectually, and in respect to the comforts of life, elevated to a condition enjoyed by the laboring class in few countries, and greatly superior to that of the free people of the same race in the non-slaveholding states, would be arrested; and the two races would be placed in a state of conflict which must end in the expulsion or extirpation of one or the other.
The bill, reported by Mr. Calhoun, sustained by the combined influence of his own report and the executive recommendation, made its way nearly through the senate. Mr. Webster opposed the bill, because it was vague and obscure, in not sufficiently defining the publications to be prohibited. Whether for or against slavery, if they "touched the subject," they would come under the prohibition. Even the constitution might be prohibited. And the deputy postmaster must decide, and decide correctly, under pain of being removed from office! He must make himself acquainted with the laws of all the states on the subject, and decide on them, however variant they might be with each other. The bill also conflicted with that provision of the constitution which guarantied the freedom of speech and of the press. If a newspaper came to him, he had a property in it; and how could any man take that property and burn it without due form of law? And how could that newspaper be pronounced an unlawful publication, and having no property in it, without a legal trial? He argued against the right to examine into the nature of publications sent to the post-office, and said that the right of an individual in his papers was secured to him in every free country in the world. ​Mr. Clay said the papers, while in the post-office or in the mail, did no harm; it was their circulation — their being taken out of the mail, and the use made of them — that constituted the mischief; and the state authorities could apply the remedy. The instant a prohibited paper was handed out, whether to a citizen or a sojourner, he was subject to the law which might compel him to surrender or to burn it. The bill was vague and indefinite, unnecessary and dangerous. It applied to non-slaveholding as well as to slaveholding states; to papers touching slavery, as well for as against it; and a non-slaveholding state might, under this bill, prohibt publications in defense of slavery. But the law would be inoperative: the postmaster was not amenable, unless he delivered the papers knowing them to be incendiary; and he had only to plead ignorance to avoid the penalty of the law. Mr. Clay wished to know whence congress derived the power to pass this lav/. The senator from Pennsylvania had asked if the post-office power did not give the right to say what should be carried in the mails. There was no such power as that claimed in the bill. If such doctrine prevailed, the government might designate the persons, or parties, or classes, who should have the exclusive benefit of the mails.
Before the question was taken on the engrossment of the bill, a motion by Mr. Calhoun to amend it so as to prevent the withdrawal of the prohibited papers, was negatived, 15 to 15. An amendment offered by Mr. Grundy, restricting the punishment of deputy-postmasters to removal from office, was agreed to; and the bill was reported to the senate. Mr. Calhoun renewed his motion in senate, and it was again lost, 15 to 15. In committee of the whole, the vice-president did not vote in the case of a tie. The question being then taken on the engrossment, there was again a tie, 18 to 18. The vice-president having temporarily left the chair, returned, and gave the casting vote in the affirmative. Of the senators from the free states voting in the affirmative, were Messrs. Buchanan, Tallmadge and "Wright. Those who voted in the negative from the slave states, were Messrs. Benton, Clay, and Kent, of Maryland.
This casting vote of Mr. Van Buren, and the several votes of Mr. "Wright, who voted with Mr. Calhoun on this subject, have been justified by their friends on the ground that Mr. Calhoun (to use the language of Mr. Benton,) "had made the rejection of the bill a test of alliance with northern abolitionists, and a cause for the secession of the southern states; and if this bill had been rejected by Mr. Van Buren's vote, the whole responsibility of its loss would have been thrown upon him and the north, and the south inflamed against those states and himself-the more so, as Mr. White, of Tennessee, the opposing democratic Candida. e for the presidency, gave his votes for the bill." The several successive tie votes have been ascribed to design — that of placing Mr. Van Buren in this position. With this intent, other senators voted for the bill, and still others absented themselves, knowing it would not finally pass. This supposition was strengthened by the full vote given on the question of its final passage: yeas, 19; noes, 25; only four absent; the three senators from the free states, Buchanan, Tallmadge and Wright, again voting in the ​affirmative; and Benton, Clay, Crittenden, Goldsborough and Kent, of Maryland, Leigh, Naudain, of Delaware, in all seven, from slave states, in the negative.
On the 11th of December, 1838, Mr. Artherton, of New Hampshire, offered a series ot resolutions, denouncing petitions for the abolition of slavery in the District ot Columbia, and again>t the slave-trade between the states, as a plan indirectly to destroy that institution within the several states; declaring that congress has no right to do that indirectly which it can not do directly; that the agitation of this question for the above purpose, is against the true spirit and meaning of the constitution, and an infringement of the rights of the states affected, and a breach of the public faith on which they entered into the confederacy; and that every petition, memorial, or paper relating in any way to slavery as aforesaid, should, on presentation, without further action thereon, be laid on the table without being debated, printed or referred.
After the close of a speech in support of these resolutions, Mr. Atherton moved the previous question, which was seconded, 103 to 102. A motion to adjourn, that the resolutions might be printed, so that the house might vote understandingly, was objected to by Mr. Cushman, of New Hampshire; and the main question was ordered, 114 to 101. The resolutions were subsequently all adopted by different votes. That which related to the reception of petitions was adopted by a vote of 12? to 78. These resolutions, as well as their author, obtained considerable notoriety, being generally referred to by the friends of the right of petition, as "Atherton's gag resolutions." Although the fifth resolution, like one adopted at a former session, prevented a formal reception of petitions, it did not apparently affect their presentation. They were daily offered as usual; indeed, an additional object of petition was furnished; numerous petitions being presented for the abolition of the gag resolutions.