# The History of Slavery and the Slave Trade/Chapter 28

Contents
CHAPTER XXVIII.
Period from 1835 to 1842. — Political History.
The state of Missouri, as originally organized, was bounded on the west by a line which excluded a triangle west of said line, and between it and the Missouri, which was found, in time, to be exceedingly fertile and desirable. It ​was free soil by the terms of the Missouri compact, and was also covered by Indian reservations, not to be removed without a concurrence of two-thirds of the senate. Messrs. Benton and Linn, senators from Missouri, undertook the difficult task of engineering through congress a bill including this triangle (large enough to form seven counties) within the state of Missouri; which they effected, at the long session of 1835-6, so quietly as hardly to attract attention The bill was first sent to the senate's committee on the judiciary, where a favorable report was procured from Mr. John M. Clayton, of Delaware, its chairman; and then it was floated through both houses without encountering the perils of a division. The requisite Indian treaties were likewise carried through the senate; so Missouri became possessed of a large and desirable accession of territory, which has since become one of her most populous and wealthy sections, devoted to the growing of hemp, tobacco, &c., and cultivated by slaves. This is the most pro-slavery section of the state.
In 1837, the republic of Texas applied for annexation to the United States Remonstrances against it, and resolutions passed by state legislatures for and against annexation, were sent to congress and presented at the session of 1831 — 8. On the 4th of January, 1838, Mr. Preston, senator of South Carolina, offered the following preamble and resolution:
"And whereas such surrender of a portion of the territory of the United States is of evil precedent and doubtful constitutionality.
"And whereas many weighty considerations of policy make it expedient to re-establish the said true boundary, and to re-annex to the United States the territory occupied by the state of Texas, with the consent of the said state:
On the 24th of April, 1838, the resolution was taken up for consideration, and supported by a speech, which is valuable for the historical information which it contains:
​passed In this opinion he differed, perhaps, from the executive. The negotiation had been declined by the secretary of state, because it would involve our relations with Mexico. Admitting that the executive had more extensive and exact information upon this question than he (Mr. Preston) could have, the resolution therefore expressed an opinion in favor of the annexation only when it could be done without disturbing our relations with Mexico.
The acquisition of territory, Mr. Preston said, had heretofore been effected by treaty; and this mode of proceeding had been proposed by the Texan minister, General Hunt. But he believed it would comport more with the importance of the measure, that both branches of the government should concur; the legislature expressing a previous opinion; which being done, all difficulties might be avoided by a treaty tripartite, between Mexico, Texas, and the United States, in which the consent and confirmation of Mexico (for a pecuniary consideration, perhaps,) might be had without infringing the acknowledged independence and free agency of Texas.
Mr. P. proceeded to show that "the Texan territory was once a part of the United States. In 1762, France ceded Louisiana to Spain. In 1800, Spain re-ceded it to France. In 1804, France ceded it to the United States. The extent of the French claim, therefore, determined ours, and included Mississippi and all the territories drained by its western tributaries. It rested upon the discovery of La Salle, in 1683, who penetrated from Canada by land, descended the Mississippi, and established a few posts on its banks. Soon afterwards, endeavoring to enter the mouth of that river from the gulf, he passed it unperceived, and sailing westward, discovered the bay of St. Bernard, now called Matagorda, whence, a short distance in the interior, he established a military post on the bank of the Guadaloupe, and took possession of the country in the name of his sovereign. The western limits of the territory, enuring to the French crown by virtue of this discovery, was determined by the application of a principle recognized by European powers making settlements in America, viz: that the dividing line should be established at a medium distance between their various settlements. At the time of La Salle's settlement, the nearest Spanish possession was a small post called Panuco, at the point where a river of that name falls into the bay of Tampico. The medium line between Panuco and the Guadaloupe was the Rio Grande, which was assumed as the true boundary between France and Spain. France asserted her claim to that boundary from 1685, the period of La Salle's discovery, up to 1762, when, by the cession of Louisiana to Spain, the countries were united and the boundaries obliterated."
Mr. P. referred to Mr. Adams' letter to Don Onis, of March, 1818, in which he recapitulated the testimony in favor of the French title. Mr. Jefferson expressed the same opinion. Messrs. Monroe and Pinckney, in 1805, in obedience to instructions from Mr. Madison, then secretary of state, asserted our claim west to the Rio Grande, in their correspondence with the Spanish commissioner. Mr. Monroe, when president, held equally strong language, through ​Mr. Adams, his secretary of state. General Jackson entertained the same opinion.
To the testimony of these presidents, he added the authority of the senator from Kentucky. During the delay on the part of Spain, in ratifying the treaty of 1819, that senator, then in the other house, taking the same view of the treaty which he (Mr. P.) was now urging — that it was a cession of a part of our territory to which the treaty-making power was incompetent — offered the following resolutions:
"1. Resolved, That the constitution of the United States vests in congress no power to dispose of the territory belonging to them; and that no treaty purporting to alienate any portion thereof is valid, without the concurrence of congress.
"The author of these resolutions, in advocating them, said: 'He presumed the spectacle would not be presented of questioning, in this branch of the government, our title to Texas, which had been constantly maintained by the executive for more than fifteen years past, under three successive administrations. 'And he said: 'In the Florida treaty, it was not pretended that the object was simply a declaration of where the western line of Louisiana was; it was, on the contrary, the case of an avowed cession of territory from the United States to Spain. The whole of the correspondence manifested that the respective parties to the negotiation were not engaged so much in an inquiry where the limit of Louisiana was, as where it should be. We find various limits discussed. Finally the Sabine is fixed, which neither of the parties ever contended was the ancient limit of Louisiana. And the treaty itself proclaims its purpose to be a cession of the United States to Spain.' Such, Mr. P. said, were the opinions of the senator in 1820, and he trusted the wisdom and patriotism which warred against that rash treaty of 1819, would now be exerted against its great and growing evils, by the reännexation of Texas.
"But he took higher ground than this. Mr. Clay rested the constitutional objection upon the incompetency of the treaty-making power to alienate territory; he (Mr. P.) considered it incompetent to the whole government. The constitution vests in congress the power "to dispose of the territory or other property of the United States." This clause was inserted to give power to effect the objects for which the states had granted these lands to the general government; and the true exposition of the clause was found in our vast and wise laud system. It was never dreamed that congress could dispose of the sovereignty of territory to a foreign power. The south, he said, had gone blindly into this treaty. The importance of Florida had led them precipitately into a measure by which we threw a gem away that would have bought ten Floridas. Under any circumstances, Florida would have been ours in a short time; but our impatience had induced us to purchase it by a territory ten times as large, a hundred times as fertile, and to give five millions of dollars into the bargain. He acquiesced in the past; but he proposed to seize the present fair ​and just occasion to remedy the mistake made in 1819; to repair, as far as possible, the evil effect of a breach of the constitution, by getting back into the Onion that fair and fertile province which, in an evil hour, we severed from the confederacy.
"This proposition which now inflamed the public mind was not a novel policy. It was strange that a measure which had been urged for twelve years pasl should be met by a tempest of opposition; and very strange that he should be riding upon and directing the storm, who was first to propose the annexation of Texas, as one of the earliest measures of his administration after he was made president he had endeavored to repair the injury inflicted upon the country by the treaty of 1819. As secretary of state in 1819, he negotiated the treaty of transfer; in 1836, as president of the United States, he instituted a negotiation for the reännexation. Through his secretary of state, Mr. Clay, he instructed Mr. Poinsett, minister to Mexico, to urge a negotiation 'for the reäcquisition of Texas and the establishment of the southwest line of the United States at the Rio Grande del Norte. Jackson and Van Buren had continued the effort; and why it had failed, it was useless now to inquire. It was certain, that president Jackson never lost sight of it, and that he continued to look to its accomplishment as one of the greatest events of his administration, to the moment when the title of Mexico was extinguished forever by the battle of San Jacinto.
"Mr. P. considered the boundary line established by the treaty of 1819, as an improper one, not only depriving us of an extensive and fertile territory, but winding with 'a deep indent' upon the valley of the Mississippi itself, running upon the Red river and the Arkansas. It placed a foreign nation in the rear of our Mississippi settlements, within a stone's throw of that great outlet which discharged the commerce of half the Union. The mouths of the Sabine and the Mississippi were of a dangerous vicinity. The great object of the purchase of Louisiana was to remove all possible interference of foreign states in the vast commerce of the outlet of so many states. By the cession of Texas, this policy had been to a certain extent compromised. He also referred to the instructions of secretary Van Buren to Mr. Poinsett, saying: 'The line proposed as the most desirable to us would constitute a most natural separation of the resources of the two nations.'
"Mr. P. next considered the report of a committee of the Massachusetts legislature, which said: 'The committee do not believe that any power exists in any branch of this government, or in all of them united, to consent to such a union, (viz. with the sovereign state of Texas,) nor, indeed, does such authority pertain, as an incident of sovereignty, or otherwise, to the government, however absolute, of any nation.' Both of these propositions he controverted. As to the powers of this government, the mistake of the committee laid in considering it, as to its nature and powers, a consolidated government. The states originally came together as sovereign states, having no power of reciprocal control. North Carolina and Rhode Island stood off for a time, and at length came in by the exercise of a sovereign discretion. So Missouri ​and other new states were fully organized and perfect, and self-governed, before they came in; and so might Texas be admitted. The power to admit new states was expressly given; and by the very terms of the grant they must be states before they were admitted. The power granted to congress was, not to create, but to admit new states; the states created themselves. Missouri and Michigan had done so, and exercised all the functions of self-government, while congress deliberated whether they should be admitted. In the meantime, the territorial organization was abrogated, and the laws of congress superseded."
After some further discussion of the question, Mr. P. said: "There is no point of view in which the proposition for annexation can be considered, that any serious obstacle in point of form presents itself. If this government be a confederation of states, then it is proposed to add another state to the confederation. If this government be a consolidation, then it is proposed to add to it additional territory and population. That we can annex, and afterwards admit, the cases of Florida and Louisiana prove. We can therefore deal with the people of Texas for the territory of Texas; and the people can be secured in the rights and privileges of the constitution, as were the subjects of Spain and France."
Having considered these "formal difficulties," he next adverted to those which exercised a more decisive influence over that portion of the Union which was offering such determined opposition to this measure. He regarded this joint movement of the northern states as a "combination conceived in a spirit of hostility towards one section, for the purpose of aggrandizing the political power of another." It could not fail to make a deep and mournful impression upon the south, that the opposition to the proposed measure was contemporaneous with the recent excitement on the subject of abolition. He said: "All men, of all parties, from all sections, in and out of office, Mr. Adams most conspicuous amongst them, desired the aquisition of Texas, until the clamorous interference in the affairs of the south was caught up in New England from old England. Then, for the first time, objections were made to this measure; then those very statesmen who were anxious for the acquisition of Texas for their glory, found out that it would subvert the constitution and ruin the country. You are called upon to declare that the southern portion of your confederacy, by reason of certain domestic institutions, in the judgment of your petitioners wicked and detestable, is to be excluded from some part of the benefits of this government. The assumption is equally insulting to the feelings and derogatory to the constitutional rights of the south. We neither can nor ought — I say it, Mr. President, in no light mood or wrong temper — we neither can nor ought to continue in political union on such terms."
"Mr. P. spoke of the diminution of the comparative political power of the south. The sceptre, he said, had passed from them, and forever. All that was left them was to protect themselves. All they asked was some reasonable check upon an acknowledged power; some approach to equipoise in the senate. All the power they coveted was the power to resist incursions. He ​suspected that the idea of checking the extension of domestic slavery was hut a hollow and hypocritical pretext to cover political designs. He did not think the extension of slave territory and the increase of the slaveholding population would increase the number of slaves. Instead of this, annexation would rather prevent such increase. We stand entirely on the defensive; we desire safety, not power, and we must have it. Give us safety and repose, by doing what all your most trusted and distinguished statesmen have been so long anxious to do. Give them to us by restoring what you wantonly and unconstitutionally deprived us of. Give us this just and humble boon, by repairing the violated integrity of your territory, by augmenting your wealth and power, by extending the empire of law, liberty, and Christianity."
In the house of representatives, on the 12th of December, 1837, Mr. Adams presented a large number of memorials against the annexation of Texas, and moved that these and all others presented by himself and his colleagues at the extra session, be referred to a select committee. His colleagues had assented to approve the motion. Mr. Howard, of Maryland, having moved their reference to the committee on foreign affairs, Mr. Adams expressed his views on the question of annexation in a manner which subjected him to several interruptions.
Mr. Adams said he and his colleagues viewed this question as one which involved even the integrity of the union — a question of the most deep, abiding and vital interest to the whole American nation. "For," said he, "in the face of this house, and in the face of Heaven, I avow it as my solemn belief that the annexation of an independent foreign power to this government would, ipso facto, be a dissolution of this Union. And is this a subject for the peculiar investigation of your committee on foreign affairs?" Mr. A. said the question involved was, whether a foreign nation — acknowledged as such in a most unprecedented and extraordinary manner, by this government, a nation 'damned to everlasting fame' by the reïnstitution of that detestable system, slavery, after it had once been abolished within its borders — should be admitted into union with a nation of freemen. "For, sir," said Mr. A., "that name, thank God, is still ours! And is such a question as this to be referred to a committee on foreign affairs?"
Mr. A. said the exact grounds upon which the memorialists based their prayer were not officially known to the house. He had presented one hundred and ninety petitions upon this subject, signed by some twenty thousand persons, and his colleagues had presented collectively a larger number. Members from other states had also presented similar memorials; but his colleagues had thought it fitting to move the reference to a select committee of those only which he and they had presented. All had the same object; and they contained nothing that had the least connection with the foreign affairs of the country.
These memorialists from Massachusetts, Mr. A. said, had observed with alarm and terror the conduct of the government towards Mexico, during the last, and as far as it had gone, of the present administration, in relation to the ​affairs of Texas. One strong reason of the remonstrance, on the part of his constituents, was, that the nation sought to be annexed to our own had its origin in violence and fraud; an impression by no means weakened by the impulses given by the late and present administrations to push on this senseless and wicked war with Mexico. They had seen the territory of that republic invaded by the act of the executive of this government, without any action of congress; and they had seen conspirators coming here, and contriving and concerting their plans of operations with members of our own government! Amidst all these demonstrations, they had heard the bold and unblushing pretense that the people of Texas were struggling for freedom, and that the wrongs inflicted upon them by Mexico had driven them into insurrection, and forced them to fight for liberty!
There had been recent evidence afforded the country as to the real origin of the insurrection. A citizen of Virginia, (Dr. Mayo,) who for years had held offices under the late administration, had just issued a pamphlet in this city, giving a copy of a letter by himself, in December, 1830, to the President of the United States, in which he declared that, in February, 1830, the person now called President Houston did in this city disclose to himself, the author of this letter, all his designs as to this then state of the republic of Mexico — Texas. What that letter contained as to the disclosure of a scheme to be executed, was now a matter of history. It disclosed the particulars of a conversation which detailed the plan of the conspiracy, since consummated, to rob Mexico of the province of Texas.
Mr. A. then inquired what were the pretenses upon which the disseverment of Texas from Mexico were justified. As early as 1824, the legislature of the republic of Mexico, to its eternal honor, passed an act for the emancipation of slaves, and the abolition of slavery; and the only real ground of rebellion was that very decree; the only object of the insurrection, the revival of the detested system of slavery; and she had adopted a constitution denying to her legislature even the power of ever emancipating her slaves!
Mr. Adams did not wish to refer the memorials to the committee on foreign affairs, because it was not properly constituted. Its chairman, (Mr. Howard,) was himself a slaveholder, and, it was feared, entertained a widely different opinion as to the morality of slavery from that held by the mass of the memorialists; and that a majority of the committee were in favor of annexing Texas to this government. It was conformable with the parliamentary rule to appoint a majority of the committee in favor of the prayer of the memorialists. This seemed to him as one of the incidents of freedom of petition itself. Six out of nine of the committee on foreign affairs were slaveholders; and he took it for granted that every member of the house who was a slaveholder, was ready for the annexation of Texas; and its accomplishment was sought, not for the acquisition of so much new territory, but as a new buttress to the tottering institution of slavery.
After a brief interruption by southern members, Mr. A. proceeded:
He said discussion must come; though it might for the present be delayed, ​he believed it would not forever be smothered by previous questions, motions to lay on the table, and all the other means and arguments by which the institution of slavery was wont to be sustained on that floor — the same means and arguments, in spirit, which in another place have produced murder and arson. Yes, sir, the same spirit which led to the inhuman murder of Lovejoy at Alton ——
The chair remarked that Mr. A. was straying from the question of reference; and some conversation ensued as to his right to proceed, which he was at length permitted to do.
In the course of his remarks, he said that he and his colleagues had seen, in reading the late message of the executive, how much was not in that document as well as how much was in it. It contained much allusion to the grievances of this government at the hands of Mexico, and none to our relation with Texas. The annexation of Texas and the proposed war with Mexico were one and the same thing, though expressed in different forms. The message was adverse to the prayer of the memorialists. Under the decision of the chair, he should reserve what he had to say further on this point until the mouths of members inclined to advocate the cause of freedom upon that floor, should be permitted to be opened more widely; if, indeed, there was any hope that that time should ever arrive.
Mr. Wise said there was no need, at present, of any such reference as had been proposed. Texas had attempted to open a negotiation for admission; but her overture had been declined on the ground of our relations with Mexico. No memorial in favor of such a measure had ever been before the house. It would be time enough to discuss the subject dwelt upon with so much feeling by the gentleman from Massachusetts, when it should come up regularly for discussion. He therefore moved to lay the motions of reference on the table; and having refused to withdraw his motion at the request of Mr. Rhett and Mr. Dawson to enable them to reply to Mr. Adams, the question was taken, and decided in the affirmative. Yeas, 127; nays, 68.
On the 13th of June, 1838, the committee on foreign affairs reported that there was no proposition pending in the house either for the admission of Texas as a state, or for its territorial annexation to the United States. And in October it was announced in the official paper (Globe) that, since the proposition submitted by Texas for admission into the Union had been declined, the Texan minister had communicated to our government the formal and absolute withdrawal of that proposition.
In August, 1839, a vessel lying near the coast of Connecticut, under suspicious circumstances, was captured by Lieut. Gedney, of the brig Washington, and taken into New London. This vessel was a schooner, called L'Amistad, bound from Havana to Guanaja, Port Principe, with fifty-four blacks and two passengers on board. The former, four nights after they were out, rose and murdered the captain and three of the crew; then took possession of the vessel with the intention of returning to Africa. The two passengers were Jose Ruiz and Pedro Montez, the former owning forty-nine of the slaves, and ​most of the cargo; the latter claiming the remaining five, all children from seven to twelve years of age, and three of them females. These two men were saved to navigate the vessel. Instead, however, of steering for the coast of Africa, they navigated in a different direction, whenever they could do so without the knowledge of the Africans. It appeared that the slaves had been purchased at Havana, soon after their arrival from Africa. Cingues, who was the son of an African chief, and leader of the revolt, with thirty-eight others of the revolters, was committed to trial; and the three girls were put under bonds to appear and testify.
A demand was soon after made upon our government by the acting Spanish minister in this country, for the surrender of the Amistad, cargo, and alleged slaves, to the Spanish authorities.
The children were brought before the circuit court of the United States, held at Hartford, in September, on a writ of habeas corpus, with 'a view to their discharge, on the ground that they were not slaves; proof of which was given by two of the prisouers who testified that the children, were native Africans. The discharge was resisted by Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for the Spanish claimants, who stated that the persons were libeled in the district by Capt. Gedney, his officers and crew, as property; they were also libeled by the Spanish minister as the slave property of Spanish subjects, and as such ought to be delivered up; and they were libeled by the district attorney, that they might be delivered up to the executive, in order to their being sent to their native country, if it should be found right that they should be so sent. The counsel presumed that this (circuit) court would not, under this writ, take this case out of the legitimate jurisdiction of the district court, as, if the decision of that court should not be satisfactory, the matter could be brought before this court by appeal.
It was maintained by Mr. Baldwin, counsel for the children, that they had been feloniously and piratically captured in Africa — contrary to the laws of Spain — consequently, they were not property, and therefore the district court was ousted of its jurisdiction. The district judge had not issued his warrant to take these individuals. This he could not do without first judicially finding that they were property. The warrant issued by his honor to the marshal was to take the vessel and other articles of personal property. These children were not, and never could become personal property. They formed a part of a number of persons, who, born free, were captured and reduced to slavery. They had come here, not as slaves, but as free; and we are asked first to make them slaves, and then give them up to the Spaniards. But we can only deliver up property; and before they can be delivered up, they must be proved to be property. Mr. Staples, associate counsel for the Africans, said Montez had the hardihood to come into a court of justice in our free country, and in contravention of our treaty with Spain, to ask the surrender of these human beings, when the very act he desired us to countenance, would, by his own sovereign's decree, have subjected him to forfeiture of all his goods and to transportation; ​And he would himself have become a slave This was a case of felony; and felony could not confer property.
The next day, a second writ of habeas corpus having been issued, all the Africans were before the court. The counsel recapitulated the facts of the case, and again denied the jurisdiction of the district court. As a court of admiralty, it could do nothing with them but as property; and the applicant must first prove them to be property. Some of them were taken on shore; these were within the jurisdiction of the common law.
As to the libel of the district attorney at the suit of the Spanish minister, what had the minister to do with it? The parties claimed were neither fugitives or criminals. The district attorney libels them and prays that they may be kept in custody, that, if at some future time it should appear that they had been brought hither illegally, they might be delivered up to the president to be sent back to their own country. The counsel then asked their discharge. He said they should be taken care of (as it was right they should be) by the state of Connecticut.
The counsel for the claimants followed in support of the jurisdiction of the district court; and the district attorney in support of his libel on behalf of the executive.
The decision of the court (Judge Thompson) in relation to the motion of the prisoners' counsel to discharge the Africans, was to deny the motion, as the question before the court was simply as to the jurisdiction of the district conrt over this subject. If the seizure was made upon the high seas — and the grand jury said it was made a mile from the shore — then the matter was right — fully before the court for this district. If, as was supposed by the counsel on both sides, the seizure was made within the district of New York, the court could endeavor to acertain the locality. To pass upon the question of property, belonged to the district court. Should either party be dissatisfied with the decision of that court, an appeal could be taken to the circuit court, and afterwards to the supreme court of the United States.
The court said the question now disposed of had not been affected by the manner in which the grand jury had disposed of the case upon the directions of the court. They had only found that there had been no criminal offense committed which was cognizable by the courts of the United States. Murder committed on board a foreign vessel with a foreign crew and foreign papers, was not such an offense; but an offense against the laws of the country to which the vessel belonged. But if the offense had been against the law of nations, this court would have jurisdiction. The murder of the captain of the Amistad was not a crime against the law of nations.
The district court was opened; and the judge said he should order the district attorney to investigate the facts to ascertain where the seizure was made; and then adjourned the court to November.
At the adjourned term of the court in November, it was pleaded in behalf of the Africans, that neither the constitution, laws, or any treaty of the United States, nor the law of nations, gave this court any jurisdiction over their ​persons; they therefore prayed to be dismissed. The counsel for Captain Gedney denied that the Africans had anything to do with the question now before the court. It was a claim for salvage; and the parties were the libelants, (Gedney and the other officers and crew of the Washington,) and Ruiz and Montez, owners of the vessel and cargo. Gedney and others claimed salvage for saving the property of these Spaniards, who did not resist the claim.
The district attorney presented a claim in behalf of the United States for the vessel, cargo and negroes, with a view to their restoration to their owners, who were Spanish subjects, without hindrance or detention, as required by our treaty with Spain.
The interpreter being absent and sick, the court adjourned to New Haven in January next.
In January, the decision of Judge Judson was given. The blacks who murdered the captain and others on board the schooner, were set free. But if they had been whites, they would have been tried and executed as pirates. The schooner having been proved to have been taken on the "high seas," the jurisdiction of the court was established. The libel of Gedney and others had been properly filed, and the seizers were entitled to salvage. Ruiz and Montez had established no title to the Africans, who were undoubtedly Bozal negroes, or negroes recently imported from Africa in violation of the laws of Spain. The demand of restoration made by the Spanish minister, that the question might be tried in Cuba, was refused, as by Spanish laws the negroes could not be enslaved; and therefore they could not properly be demanded for trial. One of them a Creole, and legally a slave, and wishing to be returned to Havana, a restoration would be decreed under the treaty of 1795. These Africans were to be delivered to the president, under the act of 1819, to be transported to Africa.
An appeal was taken from the decree of the district judge to the circuit court, judge Thompson presiding, who affirmed that decree. And the government of the United States, at the instance of the Spanish minister, here appealed to the supreme court of the United States. That court affirmed the judgment of the district court of Connecticut in every respect, except as to sending the negroes back to Africa: they were discharged as free men.
A deep interest seems to have been taken by the British government in the case of these Africans. Their minister in this country, Mr. Fox, was instructed to intercede with our government in their behalf; and their minister in Spain was directed to ask for their liberty if they should be delivered to the Spaniards at the request of the Spanish minister at Washington, and should be sent to Cuba; and to urge Spain to enforce the laws against Montez and Ruiz and any other Spanish subjects concerned in the transaction in question.
A disposition was manifested on the part of our government to effect the delivery of the captives to the Spanish authorities, at Cuba, to be there dealt with according to the laws of Spain. The friends of the Africans in this country deprecated such event, apprehending that the freedom of the negroes might not be obtained through the Spanish tribunals. ​On the 10th of February, 1840, probably suspecting-unfairness on the part of the administration, a resolution was offered, requesting the president to communicate to the house copies of any demand by the Spanish government for the surrender of the Africans, and of the correspondence between the state department and the Spanish minister and the district attorney of the United States in the judicial district of Connecticut.
On the 20th of January, 1841, while the question of the prisoners was still pending in the supreme court of the United States, the British minister ad dressed to Mr. Forsyth, secretary of state, a letter representing the interest felt by his government in the case of the African negroes, mentioning the obligation of Spain, by treaty with Great Britain, to prohibit the slave trade from the 30th of May, 1820, and the mutual engagements of the United States and Great Britain, by the 10th article of the treaty of Ghent, to use their endeavors for the entire abolition of the slave trade. And as the freedom of the negroes may depend upon the action of the United States government, he expresses the hope that the president will find himself empowered to take such measures in their behalf, as should secure them their liberty.
Mr. Forsyth, in his answer of the 1st of February, says, in substance, that the introduction of the negroes into this country did not proceed from the wishes or direction of our government The vessel and the negroes had been demanded by the Spanish minister, and the grounds of that demand were before the judicial tribunals. He tells Mr. Fox that our government is not willing to erect itself into a tribunal between Spain and Great Britain; that he, (Mr. Fox,) had doubtless observed from the correspondence published in a congressional document, that the Spanish minister intended to restore the negroes, should their delivery to his government be ordered, to the island of Cuba, to be placed under the protection of the government of Spain. There was the proper place, and there would be a full opportunity, to discuss questions arising under the Spanish laws and the treaties of Spain with Great Britain.
The decision of the supreme court was awaited with deep interest by all who sympathized with the negroes. Mr. Adams, who had not argued a case for thirty or forty years before that court, made a very elaborate as well as able argument in their behalf. The opinion of the court was pronounced by Mr. Justice Story, early in March, 1841, affirming the decision of the district court in every particular, except that which ordered the negroes to be delivered to the president to be transported to Africa. The court reversed this part of the decree, and ordered the cause to be remanded to the circuit court which had affirmed the same, with directions to enter in lieu thereof, that the negroes be declared free, and be discharged from suit.
CENSUS OF 1840. — SLAVE POPULATION.
| Alabama | 253,532 | Mississippi | 195.211 |
| Arkansas | 19,935 | Missouri | 5S,240 |
| District of Columbia | 4,094 | New Jersey | 674 |
| Delaware | 2,605 | New York | 4 |
| Florida | 25.717 | Pennsylvania | 64 |
| Georgia | 280,944 | North Carolina | 245,817 |
| Illinois | 331 | South Carolina | 327,038 |
| Kentucky | 182,258 | Tennessee | 183.059 |
| Louisiana | 168,452 | Virginia | 449,087 |
| Maryland | 89,737 | Aggregate, 2,487,455. | Aggregate, 2,487,455. |
In the ten years between 1830 and 1840, the aggregate increase amounted to 478,412. Slavery had decreased in the District of Columbia, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia.
On the 24th of January, 1842, Mr. Adams presented a petition to the house, signed by forty-six citizens of Haverhill, Massachusetts, for the adoption of measures peaceably to dissolve the Union, assigning as one of the reasons the inequality of benefits conferred upon different sections, one section being annually drained to sustain the views and course of the other without adequate return. Mr. Adams moved its reference to a select committee, with instructions to report an answer showing the reasons why the prayer of the petitioners should not be granted.
This matter produced considerable excitement, questions and motions followed. Mr. Gilmer, of Virginia, submitted as a question of privilege the following: "Resolved, that in presenting to this house a petition for the dissolution of the Union, the member from Massachusetts has justly incurred the censure of this house." The resolution was objected to as out of order; the speaker decided that being a question of privilege it was in order. Mr. Adams hoped the resolution would be received and debated, desiring the privilege of addressing the house in his own defense. A motion to lay Gilmer's resolution on the table was negatived, 94 to 112, Mr. Adams himself voting in the negative.
Mr. Marshall, of Kentucky, then offered as a substitute for Gilmer's resolution, a preamble and two resolutions, declaring a proposition to the representatives of the people to dissolve the constitution which they were sworn to support, to be "a high breach of privilege, a contempt offered to the house, a direct proposition to each member to commit perjury, and involving necessarily in its consequences the destruction of our country, and the crime of high treason;" that Mr. Adams, in presenting the petition, had "offered the deepest indignity to the house, and insult to the people," and would, if "unrebuked and unpunished, have disgraced his country in the eyes of the world." It was farther resolved, that this insult, the first of the kind ever offered, deserved expulsion; but, as an act of grace and mercy they would only inflict upon him "their severest censure, for the maintenance of their own purity, and dignity; and for the rest, they turn him over to his own conscience and the indignation of all true American citizens." ​A debate then ensued, which continued, with little intermission, until the 7th of February. The nature of the subject of the resolutions, the serious charges which they contained, and the individual accused, as well as certain incidental topics which it embraced, imparted to this debate a surpassing interest throughout the country. For several days Mr. Marshall, Mr. Wise, and Mr. Adams, were the chief participators. Mr. Wise undertook to show, in the course of his speeches, that there was a combination of pretended philanthropists of Great Britain and the abolitionists of this country to overthrow slavery in the southern states; and he charged Mr. Adams with being an ally of British emissaries in the furtherance of this object.
Mr. Wise said he should at the proper time ask to be excused from voting for the resolution of censure. Personally, he had not censured him; politically, he had. He said: "The gentleman was honored, time honored, hoary — but he could not add, with wisdom. The gentleman had immense power, the power of station, the power of fame, the power of age, the power of eloquence, the power of the pen; and any man was greatly mistaken who should say or think, that the gentleman was mad. The gentleman might say with an apostle, 'I am not mad, most noble Festus,' though he could not add, 'but speak forth the words of truth and soberness.' All who knew him would say he was not mad. In a political, not in a personal sense, Mr. Wise would say, and with entire sincerity of heart, the gentleman was far more wicked than weak. A mischief might be done by him. Mr. Wise believed he was disposed to do it, and would wield his immense intellectual, moral, and political power to effect it. That mischief was the dissolution of this Union, and the agent of that dissolution, should it ever be effected, Mr. Wise did in his heart believe, would be the gentleman from Massachusetts. Governed by his reputation, by his habits, by all considerations arising from the belief of personal wrongs, his passions were roused, and his resentment and his vengeance would be wreaked on the objects of his hatred, if he could reach them. If this state of mind were monomania, then it was hereditary; no matter what might be its cause, it was dangerous — deadly. The gentleman was astute to design, obstinate and zealous in power, and terrible in action, and an instrument well fitted to dissolve the Union."
Mr. Adams questioned the right of the house to entertain the resolutions of Mr. Mashall, because they charged him with crimes of which the house had no jurisdiction; and because, if it entertained the jurisdiction, it deprived him of rights secured to him by the constitution. All that the house could try him for, was a contempt of the house, under the resolution of Mr. Gilmer. "But," said Mr. Adams, "there was a trial in this house, about four or five years ago, of a member of the house for crime. [Mr. Wise had had connection with the duel between Messrs. Graves and Cilley, in which the latter was killed.] There came into this house then a man with his hands and face dripping with the blood of murder, the blotches of which were yet hanging upon him; and the question was put, upon the proposition of those very democrats to whom he has this day rendered the tribute and homage of his thanks, that he should ​be tried by this house for that crime, the crime of murder. I opposed the trial of that crime by this house. I was willing that the parties to that atrocious crime should be sent to their natural judges, to have an impartial trial; and it is very probable that I saved that blood-stained man from the censure of the house at the time."
Mr. Wise, interrupting Mr. Adams, inquired of the speaker whether his character or conduct was involved in the issue before the house, and whether it was in order to charge him with the crime of murder; a charge made by a man who had at the time defended him from the charge on that floor; and who had, as he was informed by one of Mr. Adams' own colleagues, defended him before thousands of people in Massachusetts.
Mr. Adams said he never had defended the man on the merits of the case; and never did believe but what he was the guilty man, and that the man who pulled the trigger was but an instrument in his hands. He repeated, that the house had no power to try and punish him for the crimes charged against him. The constitution provides, that "in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right of a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury." The house was not an impartial tribunal. "I wish," said Mr. Adams, "to speak of the slaveholders of this house and of the Union with respect. There are three classes of persons included in the slave interest as representatives here. As to the slaveholder, I have nothing to say against him, except if I am to be tried by him, I shall not have an impartial trial. I challenge him for partiality — for preädjudication upon this question, as a question of contempt, which I repeat, is the only charge on which I can be made to answer here, I say he is not impartial. Every slaveholder has not only an interest, but the most sordid of all interests — a personal, pecuniary interest — which will govern him. I come from a portion of the country where slavery is known only by name; I come from a soil that bears not the foot of a slave upon it. I represent here the descendants of Bedford, and Winslow, and Carver, and Alden — the first who alighted on the rock of Plymouth. And am I, the representative of the descendants of these men — of the free people of the state of Massachusetts, that bears not a slave upon it — am I to come here and be tried for high treason because I presented a petition — a petition — to this house, and because the fancy or imagination of the gentleman from Kentucky supposes that there was anti-slavery or the abolition of slavery in it? The gentleman charges me with subornation of perjury and of high treason, and he calls upon this house, as a matter of mercy and grace, not to expel me for these crimes, but to inflict upon me the severest censure they can; and to decide upon that, there are one hundred members of this house who are slaveholders. Is any one of them impartial? No. I trust they will not consider themselves as impartial men; I trust that many of them will have those qualms of conscience which the gentleman from Accomac (Mr. Wise) assigns as his reason for being excused, and that they will not vote upon a question on which their personal, pecuniary, and most sordid interests are at stake."
Mr. Underwood, of Kentucky, also maintained that the house was not the ​proper tribunal before which Mr. Adams, if guilty of the crimes alleged, ought to be arraigned. He defended the right of petition. He believed where there was no power to grant the prayer of the petitioners, there was no right to petition. But he had voted against the 21st rule, because by that petitioners were excluded who had a right to be heard. As a slaveholder, he had differed from his brethren in reference to the whole gag proceedings. In reference to all gag rules, he said, away with them. Let those who wish, discuss this topic as much as they please. He attempted to show that the proceeding against Mr. Adams was to punish him for an imputed motive. What had he been guilty of? Had he sanctioned, the petition? How could they judge his motive? Nor had he violated the rules of order. He had simply presented a petition; and they were attempting to punish him for the manner in which he had considered it his duty to represent a portion of the people of Massachusetts. He told gentlemen to beware how they put it into the power of the gentleman from Massachusetts to go home and tell his constituents that he was a martyr to the right of petition.
Mr. Botts, of Virginia, also defended Mr. Adams. "He did not approve all that he had said on that floor. But he would not wound the feelings of that venerable gentleman. He believed he had expressed many sentiments in the irritability of the weight of years that hung on him, which his own calm reflection would condemn. There was enough passing under his immediate observation to provoke the gentleman, and if he might use the expression, to 'bedevil' him. But what was the offense with which he stood charged? He had presented a petition; and he had asked permission to present a remonstrance, and appeal to the petitioners against the folly of their course. This was not the first time the house had heard of the dissolution of the Union. A gentleman from South Carolina, now a member of this body, (Mr. Rhett,) had three or four years ago actually drawn up a resolution, asking congress to appoint a committee, to consist of one member from each state, to devise measures for the dissolution of the Union. [This called out Mr. Rhett in explanation. It was not his wish to dissolve the Union; he intended it as an amendment to a motion to refer with instructions to report a bill for abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia. He expected it to be laid on the table with the original motion. His design was to place before congress and the people what he believed to be the true issue upon this great and vital question. The resolution proposed a committee of two from each state.] It was, said Mr. Botts, not only the doctrine of the gentleman, but of the majority of his state. They held that a state had a right to secede from the Union. If one state had such right, others had."
Mr. Botts "considered this affair a great farce — a storm in a tea-pot. Talk of censuring the gentleman from Massachusetts! Look at the other end of this avenue. A man at the head of the right arm of the defense of this nation — the secretary of the navy, (Mr. Upshur,) — the last time he had had conversation with him, was an open, avowed advocate of the immediate dissolution of the Union. [Mr. Wise: I deny it.] Mr. Botts repeated the declaration, and ​said, when the secretary denied it, he would undertake to prove his statement. If there were to be any charges for high treason, the secretary of the navy should be put on his trial."
Mr. Arnold, of Tennessee, spoke at length in opposition to the resolutions, and in defense of Mr. Adams. "He could have no possible motive for desiring the dissolution of the Union. He had presented this petition, because he wanted, as the last and most glorious act of a long life, to send forth, in these times of general confusion and political degeneracy, a paper with healing in its wings — a report adverse to the prayer of the petition, and which should state, in a luminous and convincing manner, all the strong arguments in favor of union. He would like to see such a paper from the able pen of that venerable patriot. It would dissipate all doubts as to the purity and patriotism of its author.
"But for the crime of presenting a petition with such an object in view, the house was to put on record against him a charge of aiding in high treason, and in suborning the members of that house to the commission of perjury; and he was to consider it as a great favor that the house did not expel him, but contented itself with giving him a reprimand. Mr. Arnold should like to witness the spectacle. He should like to see that gentleman standing at the liar, with his palsied hand, his bare head, and whitened locks, to be rebuked by the speaker, comparatively a mere boy, after having been visited with the vituperation and vindictive persecution of another, as much a boy in comparison. What a spectacle! Mr. Arnold turned from the thought with loathing and disgust, and so would the nation. So far from helping the cause of the south, it would kindle up against her a blaze high as the very heavens. He was against it — utterly and totally against it — from principle and from policy too."
Mr. Adams demanded that before the house came to the conclusion on the motives assumed in this charge, they should send him out to be tried before a tribunal of the country. Then he should have the benefit secured by the constitution. And he wanted, in that case, to have two or three calls made on the departments for information necessary for his defense; and for this purpose he sent several resolutions to the chair. The first of these resolutions requested the president to communicate copies of the correspondence relating to an act of South Carolina directing the imprisonment of colored persons arriving from abroad in the ports of that state; also, copies of the act or acts, and of any official opinions given by judge Johnson of the unconstitutionality of the said acts. [The act here referred to, subjects any colored person landing from a vessel in any port of South Carolina, to be arrested and imprisoned, and in case of inability to pay the costs incurred by such imprisonment, to be sold for the same as a slave.] One of the other resolutions called for a copy of any letter or letters from the president to a certain member of the house, relating to the rule of the house excluding from reception anti-slavery petitions, or to any agency of the said member in introducing the rule The first two resolutions, after considerable further debate, were adopted Upon the two relating to the "21st rule," the vote was not then taken ​Mr. A. maintained that he was guilty of no offense; be had, on presenting
the petition, declared it was the last thing he would ever vote for. He also repeated what he had said on former occasions, that he had given notice to the house, the petitioners, and the whole country, and his constituents among them, that if they sent to him their petitions for abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia, because they expected him to support them, they were mistaken.
After Mr. Adams had occupied two or three days more in his defense, a disposition was manifested to get rid of the subject, by laying it on the table. He was willing to acquiesce in such a proposition, provided it should never be taken up again. The subject was thereupon laid on the table, by a vote of 106 to 93; and the reception of the petition was refused, 40 to 106.
On the 28th of February, 1842, Mr. Giddings, of Ohio, presented a petition from upwards of eighty citizens of Austinburg, in his district, of both political parties, it was said, praying for an amicable division of the Union, separating the free and slave states. Mr. G. moved a reference of the petition to a select committee, with instructions to report against the prayer of the petitioners, and to assign reasons why their prayer should not be granted. Mr. Triplett, of Kentucky, considering the petition disrespectful both to the house and the man who presented it, moved that it be not received. The question on receiving the petition was decided in the negative: yeas 24, nays 116.
Mr. Kennedy, of Maryland, offered a resolution declaring that all such petitions should thereafter be deemed offensive, and the member presenting them liable to censure. The resolution, however, was not received. For a different act, however, Mr. Giddings, at a later period of the session, incurred a formal censure of the house.
In October, 1841, the brig Creole left Richmond, for New Orleans, with a cargo consisting principally of tobacco and slaves, about 135 in number. On the 7th of November, the slaves rose upon the crew, killed a man on board named Hewell, part owner of the negroes, and severely wounded the captain and two of the crew. Having obtained command of the vessel, they directed ner to be taken into the port of Nassau, in the British island of New Providence, where she arrived on the 9th. An investigation was made by British magistrates, and an examination by the American consul. Nineteen of the negroes were imprisoned by the local authorities as having been concerned in the mutiny and murder. Their surrender to the consul, to be sent to the United States for trial, was refused, until the advice of the government of England could be had. A part of the remaining slaves were liberated and suffered to go beyond the control of the master of the vessel and the consul.
Mr. Webster, secretary of state, in a letter dated January 29th, 1842, instructed Mr. Everett, our minister at London, to present the case to the British government, "with a distinct declaration, that, if the facts turn out as stated, this government think it a clear case for indemnification."
A different view of the question was taken by England. Lord Brougham stated in the house of lords, others concurring and and none dissenting, that "the only treaty by which England or America could claim any refugees, ​either from the other, related exclusively to murderers, forgers, and fraudulent bankrupts; and even that treaty had expired. There was no international law by which they could claim, or we give up, the parties who had taken possession of the Creole; and those persons must stand or fall by British laws only." All agreed that there was no authority to surrender the fugitives, nor hold in custody the mutineers; and it was stated that orders had been sent for their liberation.
On the 21st of March, 1842, Mr. Giddings submitted a series of resolutions on a subject which, he said, had excited some interest in the other end of the capitol, and in the nation, and which he wished to lay before the country. These resolutions declared jurisdiction over slavery to belong exclusively to the states; that by the 8th section of the first article of the constitution, the states had surrendered to the federal government jurisdiction over commerce and navigation upon the high seas; that slavery, being an abridgment of the natural rights of man, can exist only by force of positive municipal law, and is necessarily confined to the territorial jurisdiction of the power creating it; that when the brig Creole left the territorial jurisdiction of Virginia, the slave laws of that state ceased to have jurisdiction over the persons on board the said brig, who became amenable only to the laws of the United States, and who, in resuming their natural rights of personal liberty, violated no law of the United States; and that all attempts to reënslave the said persons, or to exert our national influence in favor of the coastwise slave-trade, or to place the nation in an attitude of maintaining a "commerce in human beings," were subversive of the rights and injurious to the feelings and the interests of the free states, unauthorized by the constitution, and incompatible with our national honor.
Mr. Ward, of New York, moved the previous question on these resolutions. Mr. Everett, of Vermont, with a view, probably, to their discussion, moved to lay them on the table. This motion was rejected: yeas 52, nays 125. The previous question having been seconded, and the main question ordered, Mr. Giddings, in the midst of the confusion and excitement which ensued, withdrew his resolutions.
Mr. Botts then offered a resolution, upon the adoption of which he intended to move the previous question. The preamble to the resolution deprecated the resolutions of Mr. Giddings, "touching a subject of negotiation between the United States and Great Britain of a most delicate nature," and as possibly "involving those nations and the whole civilized world in war; "declared it to be the duty of every good citizen, and especially of every representative of the people, to discountenance all efforts to create excitement and division among the people under such circumstances; and denounced them as justifying mutiny and murder, in terms shocking to all sense of law, order and humanity: therefore,
"Resolved, That this house hold the conduct of said member as altogether unwarranted and unwarrantable, and deserving the severe condemnation of the people of this country, and of this body in particular."
An excited debate ensued, which continued during the remainder of that ​day and the next, and in which sundry questions of order, appeals, and of privilege were discussed. Several members having expressed a desire that Mr. Giddings should be heard in his defense, he rose and said: "I stand before the house in a peculiar situation." Mr. Cooper, of Georgia, objected to his proceeding, but at the request of his colleagues withdrew his objection. But Mr. G. did not resume the floor. He, however, addressed to the reporter of the National Intelligencer a note stating, that when he was called to order the last time, he had written and desired to state to the house as follows:
"Mr. Speaker: I stand before the house in a peculiar situation. It is proposed to pass a vote of censure upon me, substantially for the reason that I differ in opinion from a majority of the members. The vote is about to be taken without giving me time to be heard. It would be idle for me to say that I am ignorant of the disposition of a majority to pass the resolution. I have been violently assailed in a personal manner, but have had no opportunity of being heard in reply. I do not now stand here to ask for any favor or to crave any mercy at the hands of the members. But in the name of an insulted constituency — in behalf of one of the sovereign states of this Union — in behalf of the people of these states and the federal constitution — I "demand" a hearing, agreeably to the rights guaranteed to me, and in the ordinary mode of proceeding. I accept of no other privilege; I will receive no other courtesy."
The resolution of Mr. Botts was adopted by a vote of 125 to 69; the preamble, 129 to 66.
Mr. Giddings then addressed to the speaker a letter of resignation, which was the next day laid before the house. He immediately departed for his residence in Ohio — was reelected on the 26th of April, at a special election called by the governor of the state, by a majority of about 3,500 votes over his opponent — and returned to his seat in the house on the 5th of May.
* ↑ Young's Political History.
* ↑ American Statesman.