Daily national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1854, 1854-02-07


My general view upon this subject is simply
this: Slavery is the subsection Of one man 70
1 the absolute disposal OF another man, by force.
Master and slave according to the principles
Of the Declaration Of independence, and by the
law of nature, are alike men, endowed by their
Creator with equal rights Sir, Mr.. Pinkney
was right, when, in the Maryland House Of
Delegates, he exclaimed, By the eternal
principles of justice, no man in the State has
! q right to hold his slave for single hour"
| Slavery, then, exists nowhere by the law OF ma
ture. Wherever it exists at all, it must be
through the sanction and support of municipal
or State legislation
Upon this state Of things the Constitution
acts 1t recognises all men as persons. It con.
fcrs no power, but, on the contrary, expressly
denies all power to the Government Of it's GRE
alton to establish or continue Slavery. Con-
gress has no more power under the Consttu-
| ton, to make q slave than to make king; no
more power to establish Slavery than to estab-
lish the Inquisition.
| At tho same time, the Constitution confers
no power on Congress- but on the contrary,
denies all power to Interfere with the internal
policy of any State, sanctioned and established
by its own Constitution and its own legislation,
in respect TO the personal relations of its in
habtants The States, under the Constitution,
Congress in that respect, except perhaps, in
the case Of war or insurrection; and may legis-
late as they please within the limits of their
own Constitutions. They may allow Slavery,
if they please just as they may license other
wrongs But State laws, by which Slavery is,
allowed and regulated can operate only within
tho limits of the State and can have no extra
territorial effect.
Sir, could quote the opinions of Southern
judges ad minimum, in support Of the doctrine
that Slavery is against natural right, absolutely
dependent for its existence or continuance upon
the State legislation | might quote the scorn-
full rejection by Randolph Of all aid from the
General Government to the institution of Sla
very within the States | might quote the de-
cision of the celebrated Chancellor Wythe, of
Virginia-overruled afterwards, ! know, sir,
in the Court of Appeals-that Slavery was so
against Justice, that the presumption Of free
dom must be allowed in favor of every alleged
slave suing for liberty, and that the onus of
proving the contrary rested upon the master.
think, SIR, have now shown that the Ofdi-
nance Of l787, and the Constitution ofthe United
States, were absolutely in harmony one with
the other and that if the Ordinance had never
been adopted, the Constitution itself, properly
interpreted and administered, would have ex-
cluded Slavery from all newly-acqnircd terri
tory But, sir, whatever opinion may be en-
tertained in respect to the Interpretation of the
Constitution which I defend, one thing is alb
solutely indispntable and that is, that it was
the original policy Of the country to exclude
Slavery from all national territory.
That policy was never departed from until
the year 1890, when Congress accepted the
cession Of what is now Tennessee, from North
Carolina But did the acceptance Of that ces-
sion indicate any purpose Of establishing
geographical line between Slavery and Free
dom Why, sir, on the contrary, the State Of
North Carolina, aware that in the absence Of
any stipulation to the contrary, Slavery would
be prohibited in the cedcd territory in uursu-
ance of the established policy of the Govern
ment, introduced into her deed Of cession an
express provision, that the anti-slavery article
Of the Ordinance of 1887 should not be applied
to it. II may be said that Congress should have
refused to accept the cession. | agree in that
opinion. But Slavery already existed in that
district ms part of the State Of North Carolina,
and it was probably thought unreasonable to
deny the wish of the State for its continuance
The same motives decided the action of
Georgia in making her cession of the territory
between her western limits and the Mississippi,
and the action of Congress accepting it. The
acceptance of both of these cessions as we'll as
the slave laws of Maryland for the District of
Columbia. were departures from original pol
icy but they indicated no purpose to establish
any geographical line They were the result
of the gradually increasing Indifference to the
claims of Freedom, plainly perceivable in the
history of the country after the adoption of the
Constitution. Luther Martin had complained
in I78S-1when our own liberties were at
stake, we warmly felt for the common rights
Of man. The danger being thought to be
passed which threatened ourselves we are daily
growing more and more insensible to those
rights" It was this growing insensibility
which led to these departures from original
policy. Afterwards, in 1903, Louisiana was
acquired from France. Did we then hasten to
establish geographical line? No, sir. In
Louisiana, as in the Territories acquired from
Georgia and North Carolina, Congress re-
Trained from applying the policy of 1887; Con-
gress did not interfere with existing Slavery;
Congress contented itself with enactments pro-
hibiting. absolutely, the introduction Of slaves
from beyond the limits Of the United States
and also prohibiting their introduction from
any of the States, except by bona fde owners,
actually removing to Louisiana for settlement.
When Louisiana was admitted into the Union,
in 1912, no restriction was imposed upon her
in respect to Slavery. At this time, there were
slaves all along up the west bank Of the Mis-
sissippi as far as st. Louis, and perhaps even
above
In 1918 Missouri applied for admission into
the Union. The free States then awoke TO the
danger OF the total overthrow of the original
policy Of the country They saw that no State
had taken measures for tho abolition Of Slave
ry since the adoption Of the Constitution. They
saw that the feeble attempt to restrict the in
PRODUCTION of slaves into the territories acquir-
cd from Georgia and from France had utterly
failed They insisted therefore, that in the
formation Of Constitution, the people Of the
proposed State should embody in il a provis-
ion for the gradual abolition OF existing Slave
ry, and prohibiting the further Introduction of
slaves.
BY this time the slave interest had become