Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1847-03-12
WILMINGTON. N. c.. FRIDAY. MARCH IL, ls47.

into territory won by our common patriotism,
treasure, and blood No, sir; it never enter
ed into their conceptions. Where our wise
men who defended so ably southern rights,
wide awake on the subject of their slave pro-
perty, when all other clauses were discussed,
but asleep when this was inserted Did |
they not understand the meaning of language
Is the word " needful' synonymous with the |
word &c expedient or judicious'' Or rather, do
not photographers define it to mean "neces-
sary, indispensably requisite ;" What is
ment by regulations p Sir, the clause of
the Constitution which gives to Congress the
power to "reg,late commerce." did any one
ever suppose that this gave US powerto pro-
hab7t commerce?
But the honorable gentleman from Pensyl-
vania, [Mr. Thompson,l thespther day, very
calmly and dispassionately told US, if major
ity of Congress were of the opinion that it was
&c needful'' to prevent citizens from carrying
their slaves into the Territories belonging to
the United States, why, the doctrine of sub
mission was incorporated into the Constitution;
and that we ought always to bow to the will
of the majority. | am perfectly willing to
concede the propriety of respectful yielding
on the part of mnorities but, when gentle
men place strained and unnatural construc-
ton upon a clause of the Constitution, the
tendency of which is to infringe upon our
rights, and ultimately to take away our proper
ty; and when, as the only argumentin defence
of it, you reply to us, that the doctrine of
submission is ingrafted on the Constitution,
and we must boz 10 it without question, it is
rather too heavy draught upon our patience
and philosophy.
Sir, it was said here the other day, that
this is not the &C W1lnot provso" When the
honorable gentleman from Mississippi [Mr.
Robertsl was speaking, the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Grover] almost interrupted
him by denying it to be the" Wilmot proviso,"
contending that it is the GO Jefferson proviso"
The gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Brinkerhoof,l
on yesterday, affirmed, with great deal of
zeal and eloquence, with an air of great tri-
umph, that Mr.. Jefferson countenanced this
doctrine; and the honorable gentleman made a
great flourish here with the Journals of the
Congress of 1884. Now, in reply to this, the
first remark have to make is, that MIR. Jeffer
sons proposition, whatever it was, was made in
1784-p11or to the adoption Of the Constitu
ton, But it may be said the very fact that
Mr.. Jefferson countenanced the doctrine Of
prohibiting slavery in the Territory OF the
| Northwest even then, showed that, IN his
heart, he was opposed to the extension OF sla-
very. | will remark that this was in 1884 /;
that, since that period, slaves have gone on
increasing, by the natural increase, until there
are more than three millions; that, under the
Constitution, the importation OF slaves was
allowed for twenty years longer; and, II Mr..
Jefferson were alive this day, acquainted with
the history of the slaves, acquainted with the
history of the South, acquainted with the In
1toIr 355NI1C
our slave property, by combining it within mar
row limits, until an exhausted soil and a
crowded population shall make it burden
and tax, he arould aeUer for one moment tole-
rate this ''Wilmot proposition as matter OF
policy, and certainly he was too well versed
in constitutional law to countenance it as 6
constitutional right.
That is the answer to the charge in refer
ence to Mr.. Jefferson, and the attempt to lenc
the sanction of his great name to this startling
proposition to do gross IN justice to one-halt o.
this Union, in the name of philanthropy, bu
in the spirit of misguided fanaticism
But, so far from his heart being in the thing
one of the proudest monuments erected to hi
fame-one of the chief glorics of his admins
tra.ion-was the acquisition Of Louisiana ac't
slarery and no anti-slavery clause So tina
Mr.. Jefferson, after the Constitution was fra
med, adorned his administration by the acqui
siton of slave territory, and lived and died {
STAKEHOLDER himself.
And not only are slaves recognised by tn
Constitution as property, but they are so re
aOgnised in the first treaty of peace, IN 1888
end in our treaty at Client with Great Britain
an article was incorporated, making an eX
press provision to indemnify those of our Cit
, zens who lost their slave property; and If yo1
f examine into the Journals of Congress AM
; the reports of committees, you will see tina
bills were reported and passed, approprlatln!
moneys to those whose slaves were lost An
r I understand it is the fact, that Mr. Adams
the venerable member from Massachusetts
: himself introduced that article into the treaty
and so avowed on the floor of Congress.
But know, Mr.. Chairman, the great i'm
portance that is attached to great names, an
. it is very natural that gentlemen should deslr
not only to throw the mantle of Jefferson, eth
great apostle of liberty around their doc
;, trines, but also that of Madison, s'the fathe
ithe Constitution" And Iheard the gentle
on from Ohio, mir Root,] who had tn
man ~ nncould read from it, to show tina
book, say he~s Congress of 1890, ad
MIR. Madison, in the Re constitutions
mitted that Congress had a. territories
right to regulate slavery in the TSS NJ
and also the gentleman from New You
Rathbunl contended for it as a proposing
that could not be disputed Now, when
heard that announced, having, l thought, O.
late formed a somewhat familiar acquaintance
with the opinions of Mr. Madison, never
theless felt a little apprehensive that some.
thing in his writings had escaped my atten
ton, and that the gentleman had found Mr.
Madison as potential authority on their side
Sir, took the liberty OF reading the book my
self, and the speech and page referred to BY
the gentleman; and, according to my construc
ton, the honorable gentleman has entirely
mistaken Mr.. Madisons meaning.
1t was upon petition introduced into the
Congress of 1870, that the question was dis
cussed by many gentlemen, and among other:
by Mr.. Madison, of the constitutional power
OF Congress to interfere with the subject Of
slavery, but more particularly what is called
and understood as the s'slave trade,'' was the
subJect-matter of discussion. Well, it is per.
tectly well known by gentlemen, that that is
a question totally distinct from the question oil
our domestic slavery But here is the part o.
the speech of Mr.. Madison alluded to by the
gentleman from Ohio and the gentleman from
New York. The intelligent reader can place
the proper construction upon it, according tc
his own Judgment
MIR. Madison says:
"The petition prayed in general terms for the
interference of Congress, so far as they were con
stltutionally authorized but even if its prayer
was in some degree unconstitutional, it might h
| committed, as was the case ON Mr. Churchma n