The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1850-03-21

that he would admit California whether slavery was
or was not precluded from these Territories
Mr. SEWARD. | said would have voted for the
admission OF California a slave State under
the extraordinary circumstances which have before
distinctly described. say that now but say also
that before | would agree TO admit any more States
from Texas, the circumstances which render such
act necessary must be shown, and must be such as
10 determine my obligation 10 do so and that Is
precisely what i insist cannot be settled now Ii
must be left for those to whom the responsibility will
belong
Mr. President, understand and am happy in
understanding, that agree with the honorable Sem
ator from Massachusetts, that there is obligation
upon Congress TO admit four new slave States out of
Texas, but that Congress has reserved her right to
say whether those States shall be formed and admit
ted or not. shall rely on that reservation shall
vote TO admit more slave States, unless under cir
cumstances absolutely compulsory
Mr.. WEBSTER. What | said was that if the
States hereafter TO be made out of Texas choose 10
come in slave States, they have n right do.
Mr.. SEWARD. My position is, that they have
not right TO come in at ALL if Congress rejects their
institutions. The subdivision of Texas is a matter
optional with both parties, Texas and the United
States.
Mr.. WEBSTER. Does the honorable Senator
mean to say that Congress can hereafter decide
whether they shall be slave or free Statesl
Mr.. SEWARD. mean 10 say that Congress can
hereafter decide whether any States, slave Free
can be framed out of Texas. If they should never be
framed out of Texas, they never could be admitted.
Another e1jec1oz, a-.s,,--at- ne ;,rjs>Je s,bck
the demand for compromise rests. That principle
assumes classification OF the States as North
ern and Southern States, as IL is expressed by the
| honorable Senator from South Carolina, Mr. CAL
HoUN but into slave States and free States as more
directly expressed by the honorable Senator from
Georgia, Mr.. BERRIES,l The argument is, that the
States severay equal and that these two classes
equal at the first and that the Constitution was
founded on that equilibrium. That the States being
equal and the classes of the States being equal in
rights they TO be regarded as constituting an as
ISOLATION in which each State, ana each OF THESE
classes of States respectively contribute in due pro-
| portions That the new Territories are common
acquisition, and the people OF these several states
and classes of States have an equal night 10 paruci-
| pate in them respectively. That the right OF the
people of the sllve States emgrnte 10 the Terrific
rcs with their slaves property IL necessary 10 al
| ford such participation on their part inasmnch as
the people Of the free States emlgrate into the same
| Territories with their properly. And the argument
deduces from this right the principle that, If Con
grrss exclude slavery from any part of This new do
MAN, it would be only Just 10 set oil portion OF the
| doman-some say south OF SO deg. 50 min, others
south Of 81 deg.which should be regarded at least
as free TO slavery, and 10 be organized into slave
Staesa ..s..
Argument ingenious and subtle, defamation ear
nest and bold, and persuasion gentle and winning as
the voice of the turtle dove when il Is heard In the
land all alike and altogether have failed to convince
me of the soundness OF this principle of the proposed
| compromise, or of any one OF the propositions on
| which il is attempted 10 be established.
| How is the original equality of the States proved
Ii rests on a syllogism of Vatel follows All men
are equal by the law of nature and of nations. But
| States are only lawful aggregaons of individual
| men, who severally equal. Therefore, States
| equal in natural rights. All this is Just and
sound. But assuming the same premises, to vii,
| that all men equal by the law OF nature and OF
nations the right of property In slaves falls 10 the
ground; for one who Is equal 10 another canpo be
| the owner or property of that other. But you
sVyar hat he
slaves 1t would be sufficient then, TO reply that this
constitutional recognition must be void, because il is
repugnant 10 the law of nature and Of nations. But
deny that the Constitution recognises property in
man. / submit on the other hand most respect
fully that the Constitution not merely does not al
| firm that principle, but on the contrary, altogether
excludes ii.
| The Constitution does not expressly affirm any
thing on the subject; all that it contains is two in
cidental illusions TO slaves These are, first, in
the provision establishing ratio OF representation
and taxation and, secondly in the provision relat
ing 10 fugtives from labor. in both the Con-
stitution dcsignedIy mentions slaves, not slaves,
much less chatels, but persons. That this re-
cognitiOn of them persons was designed is hstor
! ically known. and think was never denied give
| only two of the manifold proofs. First, John Jay,
! in'the Federaist, says;
"Let the OF the slaves be considered it is in
TRUTH peculiar Let the compromising expedent OF
the Constitution be mutually adopted which regards them
as nhabfs but debased below the equal level III free
inhabitants which regards the slave as Invested OF two
! ffths OF the man"
Yes, sir, of two ffths, but of only two-ifths;
leaving still thrce-ffths; leaving the slave still
! inhGbhdft, person, living, breathing, moving,
| reasoning immortal man.
The other proof is from the Debates in the Con-
vention. II is brief, and think instructive:
| august % l7S7-Mr. BUTLER and Mr. PINcKNRy
ed to require fugitive slaves and servants To be delivered
| up like cOnvcis.
'"Mr. WusoN. This would obligc tile Executive of the
| Stale 10 do IL nj public expense.
'Mr. SHERMAN propriety in the public
seizng aud surrenderng slave servant than horse
" Mr. BUTLER Withdrew his proposition, In order that
particular provision might be made apart from this
| article
august % Mr. BUTLER moved to insert ai1er article
lj Ifany person bound to service or labor in any of the
United States shall escape into another State he she
shall be discharged from such service labor
sequence regulation subssiing in the which
they escape but shall be delivered the person Justly
claiming their service or labor "
Alter the engroSsment, September H. page so, article
1, section 2 the 81 paragraph, the term legally was
ell after the word State in compliance with The wishes OF
who thought the term legal equyoca, and avoring
The idea that slavery was legal in moral riso Madison
Debafes, Pp 1877, i2.
deem it established them that the Constitution
does not recognise property in man, but leaves that
question, between the States, To the law of nature
and of nations. That law, us expOunded by Vat'el,
is founded in the reason OF things. When God had
created the carth with its wonderful adaptations he
| gave dominion over IL TO man. absolute human do
minion. The title Of that dominion thus bestowed
would have been incomplete, if the Lord of all
restria things could himself Lave been the property
of his fellow
The right to hare slave implies the right in some
| one to make the slaye that right must be equal and
mutual and this would resolve society into a state of
| perpetual war But If grant the original equal
nv of the States and grant also the constitutional re-
cognition of slaves property, still the argument
we are considering fails Because the States are not
! parties to the Constitution States it is the Con-
| stitution Of the People of the United States.
But even ii the States continue as States, they
| surrendered puuality n
themselves TO the sway of the numerical majority,
with qualifications or checks; FIRST of the reprosen-
tation of threehiths OF slaves In the ratio of repre-
sentation and taxation and, secondly, of the equal
| representation Of States in the Senate
The proposition of an established classification of
States stare States and free States insisted on
| by some, and into Northern and Southern as main
| tanned by others seems 10 me purely imaginary and
of course the supposed equilibrium of those classes
1 mere cOncet This must be So, because when the
Constitution was adopted twelve of the tarteen
States were slave States, and 40 there was equi-
| lbrium. And 10 the classification of States as
| Northern States and Southern States. Ii Is the
maintenance of slavery by law in a State not paral-
lels of latitude, that makes IL Southern State /;
| and the absence of this that makes IL Northern
| State And so all the States South
| Cm States and there was no equilibrium. But the
| Constitution was made not only for Southern and
| Northern States. but for States neither Northern
nor Southern-thc Western States, their coming in
| being foreseen and provided for
Ii needs little argument to show that the idea Of
| Joint stock association, or coparnershp, app
cable even by its analoges To the United States is
erroneous with NIL the consequences laneiHly de
| duced from H.. The United States are a political
state organized society, whose end is government
for the security, welfare, and happiness Of all who
| live under its protection. The theory am combat
ing reduces the objects of government to the mere
! spells of conquest. Contrary To theory so de-
basing, the preamble of the Constitution not only
the sovereignty be- not in the States, but in
the People, but also promulgates the objects of the
! Constitution
I'VE, the people OF the United States in order Ia form
1rfcf BiOH establish tusiicc insure domestic