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

than two to one, for the proviso But under
the provisions OF the Articles of Confederation,
which then controlled the legislation Of Con.
gress the votes Of majority of all the States
were necessary to retain it in the Ordinance.
1t failed, consequently, precisely as proviso in
treaty must fail, unless it receive the votes OF
two-thirds Of the members Of the Senate.
Sir, If that doctrine Of the rights of MAORI.
ties OF which we hear 80 much and see in act
ual practice so little, had then been recog-
nised--if the wishes Of majority of the States
and Of the majority of tho delegates had pre-
vailed---if the almost universal sentiment Of the
people had been respected the question of Sla.
very In this country would have been settled
that day forever All tho territory acquired
by the Union would have been covered with
the impenetrable @gs of freedom. But then,
as now, there was a slave interest in the coun-
try--then, az now, there was a slave power
The interest was comparatively small, and the
power comparatively weak but they were suf-
ficient, under the then existing Government, to
defeat the provso, and transfer tho great ques-
ton Of Slavery to future discussion. The facts
which have detailed however, are sufficient
to show what was the general sentiment, and
what was the original policy Of the country, in
respect to Slavery 1t was one OF limitation, dis
couragement, repression.
What next occurred? The subject of or
ganizing this Territory remained before Con-
gress. Mr.. Jefferson, in 1885, went to France.
His great influence was no longer felt in the
councils Of the country; but his proviso re-
manned, and in 1887 was Incorporated into
the Ordinance for the government Of the Ter
ritory Northwest Of the River Ohio. | beg the
Senate to observe, that this Territory was, ut
that moment the whole territory belonging
to the United States. | will not trouble the
Senate by reading the proviso Of the Ordinance
1t is enough to say that the Jefferson proyiso
Of 1884 coupled with provision saving to the
original States of the Union Alright to reclaim
fngtives from service, was Incorporated into
the Ordinance, and became fundamental law
over every foot of National territory. What
was the policy indicated by this action by the
fathers of the Republic? Was it that Of in.
diffsrentism between Slavery and Freedom -
that Of establishing geographical line, on
one side Of which there should be Liberty, and
on the other side Slavery, both equally under
the protection and countenance of the Govern
ment? No, sir the furthest thing possible
from that 1t was the policy of excluding Sla-
very from all National territory. 1t was adopt
cd too under remarkable circumstances. The
territory over which it was established was
claimed by Virginia, in right Of her charter,
and in right Of conquest. The gallant George
Rogers Clarke, one of tho bravest and noblest
sons of that State, had, with small body Of
troops, raised under her authority, invaded and
conquered the territory Slavery was already
there, under the French colonial law, and also
if the claim of Virginia was well founded, I'M
der the laws Of that State These facts prove
that the first application Of the original policy
Of the Government converted slave territory
into free territory.
Now, sir, what guarantees were given for the
maintenance of this policy in time to come
once, upon this floor, adverted to fact, which
has not attracted 80 much attention as, in my
judgment, its Importance deserves. II is this
While the Congress was framing this Ordi-
nance--almost the last act Of its illustrious la
bors--the Convention which framed the Con-
stitution was sitting in Philadelphia Several
gentlemen were members Of both bodies, and
ut the time this Ordinance was adopted no
proposition in respect to Slavery had been dis
cussed in the Convention, except that which re-
suited in tho establishment of the three. fifths
clause. 1t is impossible to say, with absolute
certainty, that the Incorporation of that clause
into the Constitution, which gave the slave
States representation for three-ffths of their
slaves, had anything to do with the unanimous
vote by which the proyiso was engrafted upon
the Ordinance; but the coincidence is remark
able and justiies the inference that the facts
were connected. At all events, the proviso can
hardly fail to have been regarded as affording
guarantee for the perpctuation of the policy
which it established
Already seven of the original thirteen States
had taken measures for the abolition Of Sla-
very within their limits, and were regarded MS
free States Six only of the original States
were regarded as slave States. The Ordinance
provided for the creation Of five new free States.
and thus secured the decided ascendency of the
free States in the Confederation. The perpetu-
alton Of Slavery even in any State, il is quite
obvious, was not then even thought Of
And now, SIR, let me ask the attention of the
Senate 10 the Constitution itself That charter
of our Government was not formed upon pro-
slavery principles, but upon anti-slavery prin-
oiplee, IL nowhere recognises any right Of
property in man. II nowhere confers upon the
Government which it creates, any power to
establish or to continue Slavery. Mr.. Madison
himself records in his report of the debate of
the Convention his own declaration, that il was
wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea
that there could be property in men. Every
clause in the Constitution which refers in any
way to slaves speaks Of them MS persons. and
excludes the idea Of property. In some Of the
States, it Is true, slaves were regarded as prop
erty.
The language Of Mr. Justice Mclean on
this point is very striking He says:
afhat cannot divest them of the leading
and controlling quality Of persons by which
they are designated in the Constitution. The
character Of property is given them by the 10.
cal law This law is respected, and all rights
,,rdo~ "a oro nrotcctcd nv the Eaderal anthem;
ties. Bnt the Constitution acts upon slaves as
persons and not as property
Well, sir, not only was the idea Of property
in men excluded from the Constitution; not
only was there no power granted to Congress
TO authorize or enable any man to hold anoth-
or as property, but an amendment was after
wards engrafted upon the Constitution, which
especially denied all such power.
The history Of that amendment is worth at-
tenton The State which the Senators from
Virginia 40 ably represent on this floor was