The Camden journal. [volume] (Camden, S.C.) 1836-1851, 1850-03-26
politifaI Department.
REMARKS OF MR.. BUTLER, OF SOUTH
CAROLINA.
In Senate, March &h.

Mr.. Butler. Mr.. PRESIDENT, opportunity must
be seized, or it never may be recovered; and if
| lose the present opportunity to make short
reply to some of the many remarks which have
fallen from the Senator from Wisconsin, may
never have another. Some of his remarks seem
to call for special reply from me, as repre-
sentative of South Carolina; others have spe-
cial reference to myself, in connexion with the
immediate debate; and others, again have re-
ference to my views heretofore submitted, and
in the legitimate scope of debate, and which |
have not time to notice now. know that
am trespassing on the time and feelings of the
Senate, in asking the privilege of speaking a
few words at this late hour of the evening. But
as the gentleman has taken upon himself the
Office of review and inspection, hope may
be allowed to give him some mark of saluta.
ton. l shall do so by marching up directly to
the subjects to which he has challenged my at
tention. He has been very comprehensive in
his views and free in his observations States,
persons, and general doctrines have fallen with.
in the expansive angle of his vision; and the
State of South Carolina has been specially Sc.
lected as worthy of his censure and animadver.
sion. He has thought her particularly vulner-
able upon question exposing State much
nearer to him to the same objection. One,
however, being a Southern and the other
Northern State-in the common language used
to distinguish them, he has selected the South.
ern State as the one that has made aggressions
on the North, whilst he has failed to notice a
Northern State for the same supposed offence.
South Carolina and Illinois have both excluded,
with different notifications, free people of color
from coming within their borders from abroad.
They may not have had common aim in their
policy, but they may both have common jus.
tifcation for it. All that can do is to notice
his remarks on South Carolina and her partic-
ular laws. He has denounced them in no mea-
sured language, and in tone ofinvective which
would seem to imply that he had given his spe-
cial attention to them. He says there are laws
in South Carolina which prohibit free persons
of color from coming within her ports in vessels
belonging to citizens of the United States, and
sailing under the American flag; and he said
that citizens of Massachusetts and other States
had been oppressively and unc nconstitutionally in.
carcerated under them. | have not now before
me the laws to which he refers, nor do know
how far citizens of Massachusetts have been in.
carcerated under them. There may have been
some, and | suppose very few instances in
which the provisions of the law have been en-.
forced, and, will answer for it, never in spirit
of sectional resentment or aggression. In her
view of her police policy-intended for her
safety and security-and with no view of ma
king war on the rights of others, she has vari.
Gus laws regulating black population. Under
these laws, colored cooks and seamen are not
allowed to come on shore from coasting vessels
coming from Northern ports. am not aware
that in passing such laws, South Carolina has
either violated the constitution or the laws of
Congress regulating foreign or domestic navi.
cation.
The laws of Congress, enacted long ago, for
the regulation of commerce and navigation, no.
where regard colored man as citizen, and
have made a marked distinction between them
neither the constitution nor the ancient laws re.
garded colorcd man as a citizen, within the
contemp plation Of that term. And so far as it
regards this species Of persons, each State can
give them a local status, to which all coming
within a State jurisdiction must assimilatc.-.
They are aspecies of persons having such rights
only as may be conferred upon them by State
jurisdiction; they have no federal eligibility or
federal recognition as citizens of the United
States.
In Gordon's Digest of the Revenue Laws,
(pp. s6 and 1867 it will be seen that national
vessels engaged in the foreign trade must be
manned by citizens of the United States but it
is provided that they may have as seamen col.
ored persons, natiues Of The United STATES. Here
the distinction between citizens and native col
ored people is we'll recognized. They are placed
in contradistinction by federal statute, which
was enacted shortly after the adoption of the
federal constitution. With regard to the coast
ing trade engaged in the d,mestic commerce of
the country, the provisions of the different laws
regulating them are different Gordon, pp.
lOl, l04, LOG, lO7.
This species of trade must have necessarily
left wider range ofjurisdction to the different
States for their health, quarantine and police
regulations and l take it that States having
slaves, and States not having slaves, might ha,
a different aim in their policy, deper'.ng on 10.
cal considerations. TO have r .oper system
of policy for their police and sef.security, tho
colored man might be regarded in different
light in the slave States from what he would in
the free States The slave States are not bound
to regard him as citizen, or as having higher
status assigned to him thsn pcrsous of the same
class among them. The status of a free person
of color is the creature of local jurisdiction
and free man of color in Massachusetts-c |