Edwardsville spectator. [volume] (Edwardsville, Ill.) 1819-1826, 1820-05-16
Debate on the Missouri Bill,
IN TIE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,,
MIR. COOKS SPEECH,
CONCLUDED

CONCLUDED.
Sir, is it to be said that the relative
rights of citizenship were not of sufficient
importance to give rise to provision
securing those rights presume not,
sir. Shall it be said that the right to be
protected by the United States against
savage and all other depredations, was
too unimportant a consideration to give
rise to such provision? Surely not, sir.
But they are to be incorporated into the
Union; and how are they to be incorpo-
rated +? Why, sir, according to the prin-
ciples of the federal constitution, and &C
cording to those principles too, sir,
which apply to the admission of new
states for, can it be believed, that if the
trainers of the constitution ever cast
their eyes across the Mississippi, with
the most distant belief that that bound
less region was ever to be carved out in
to American states, and form part of
that federal family to which they were
then giving new birth; that they intended
that the territory, part ofwhich q mean
the now state of Ohio) was hallowed by
the blood of the revolution, should be on
worse footing than the President and
Senate might put the territory now under
consideration; that it should be adj
mitted, under any circumstances, with
out being subject to the power of Con
gress to exercise sound discretion as
to the terms of such admission dis
erection which / hope have shown was
intended to be guaranteed to Congress,
when that provision was stricken out OF
the report of the committee of FIVE, be-
fore referred to, the object of which was
to admit new states into the Union 6 up
on an equal footing with the original
states 7" Sir, think it cannot be be-
lieved that the convention intended to
subject the principles of that compro-
mise, which so much agitated that body,
and which formed the basis of the Union,
to be thus disturbed--nay, destroyed,
and arm Congress with no redeeming
power to prevent 1t.
This treaty, therefore, if it were pos
sibe for any treaty to do so, has not at
tempted, according to its fair construc-
ton, to infringe that power, in its fullest
extent, which Congress has to regulate
the terms of the admission of new states
But, say gentlemen, this is federal
right; the right to hold slaves is
guaranteed by the federal constitution
and therefore is federal right, with
which Congress cannot interfere. The
right to hold slaves guaranteed by the
federal constitution! No, sir; it was q
right which existed before, and the fed
eral constitution has only provided
against the invasion of that right in such
of the then existing states as chose to
recognize it as a right This was ne.
cessary to be done, because they were
then recognized as property, and with
out the consent of the states they could
not be made to assume higher station
The right to hold slaves, therefore, is
not created by the constitution. Nor is
it federal right: it is a state right; or
in other words, a state wrong, with which
by its consent, it may part, by compac
with the general government, withou
committing any violence upon its fedora
rights. Nay, it is right of which i
could be deprived by passing non-mi
grafton law by Congress. The provision
then in the constitution, Mr.. Chairman
which provides for the reclamation o
fugitive slaves when they go into non
slave-holding states, is only necessary
regulation which grew out of the pre-
vious existence of slavery in the Union
and does not therefore create the RICH
to hold slaves. And by this course o
reasoning, Mr.. Chairman, think l fully
answer so much of the argument of tn,
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Hardin
as has been employed in opposition tt
this restriction, as is drawn from tn,
technical meaning of the word state
But, sir, let us test by further illustra
ton, the soundness of that argument
The gentleman says, state and nation ar
SYNONYMOUS terms. and that state, il
the Interpretation to which it is entitled
under Tie constitution, is as sovereign a
AVIATION, except so far as that sovereign
ty is abridged by an actual and expires
transfer Of part of its sovereignty t
the United States, in their federal charac
ter; and because there is no expires
surrender of this power, (though be
lieve he called it a right,) to decid
whether they will have slavery or moi
that therefore it is federal right, whic
cannot be surrendered. Sir, allow thi
interpretation of the word state, an
what does it lead to-! Is there any ex