The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1854-02-16

fathers of the Republic Was it that Of in
difcrentism between Slavery and Freedom =
that OF establishing a geographical line, on
one side of which there should be Liberty, and
on the other eide Slavery, both equally under
the protection and countcnance of the Govern
inent No. sir; the furthest thing possible
from that. 1t was the policy OF excluding Sla-
very from all National territory. Ii was adopt
ed, 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 the bravest and roblest
sons of that State, had, with a small body of
troops, raised under her authority, invaded and
there, under the French colonial law, and also,
if the claim Of Virginia was well founded, I'M
Ger the laws of that State. These facts prove
that the first application of the original policy
OF the Government converted save territory
into free territory.
Now, sir, what guarantees were given for the
maintenance Of this policy in time to come? |
once upon this floor, adyerted to fact which
has not attracted so much attention as in my
judgment its Importance deserves. 1t is this.
While the Congress was framing this Ord-
nance-almost the last act Of its illustrious Ia
bors-the Convention which framed the Con-
stitution was sitting In Philadelphia. Several
gentlemen were members Of both bodies, and
1T the time this Ordinance was adopted, no
proposition ia respect to Slavery had been dis
cussed in the Convention, except tliat which re-
suited in the establishment of the three 6fths
clause 1t is impossible to say with absolute
certainty, that the incorporation of that clause
into the Constitution, which gave the slave
States a representation for three tfths of their
slaves, had anything to do with the unanimous
vote by which the proviso was engrafted upon
the Ordinance; but the coincidence IS remark
able and us.iies the inference that the facts
were connected. At all events, the proviso can
hardly fail 10 'ave been regarded as aHording
a guarantee fol the perpetuation of the policy
which it established
Already seven Of the original thirteen States
had taken measures for the abolition of Sle-
very within their limits, and were regarded as
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, it is quite
obvious, was not then even thought OF.
And now, sir, let me ask the attention Of the
Senate to the Constitution itself. That charter
of our Government was not formed upon pro-
slavery principles, but upon anti-slavcry prin-
ciplee. lt nowhere recognises any right of
property in man. 1t 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 it was
wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea
that there could he property in men. Every
clause in the Constitution which refers i'm any
way to slaves speaks of them rs persons and
L. Al !, -. T.
States, it is true, slaves were regarded rs prop
erty.
The language Of Mr.. Justice Mclean on
this point is very striking. He says:
I" That cannot digest 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 To-
cal law. This law IL respected, and all rights
under it are protected by the Federal authori-
ties. But 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-
er "a 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
Virginia so ably represent on this floor, was
one of those which Immediately after the adop.
ton Of the Constitution proposed amendments
Of it. One of the amendments which she pro-
posed was this:
No free man ought to be taken, imprison-
ed, or deprived Of his freehold, liberties, or
franchises, or ontlawed, or exiled, or in any
manner deprNe cd # his life, liberty, or proper
ty but by tho law of the landD
hid ('nporaus 6opt tb,t o,,anl,xor4J NJ
sir it adopted ard proposed to the States a
very different amendment. 1t was this:
No person X shall he deprived Of
life, liberty, or property, without duo process
Of law"
Now, Fir, in my Judgment this prohibition
was intended AZ comprehensive guarantee of
personal freedom, and denies absolutely to Con.
gress the power Of lcgislating for tho establish
mcnt or maintenance of Slavery This amend
ment, of itself rightly interpreted and applied,
would be sufficient to prevent the introduction
of slaves into any territory acquired by tho
United States At all events taken in conncc-
ton with the Ordinance, and with the original
provision OF the Constitution, it shows conclu-
siycly the absence Of all intention upon the part
Of the founders of the Government to afford
any countenance Oh protection to Slavery out
side Of State limits. DEPARTURE from the true
the necessity for more positive prohibition
My general view upon this subject ia simrly
this: Slavery is the subsection of one man to
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.. Pnkney
was right, when, in the Maryland House cf
Delegates. he exclaimed, by the eternal
principles OF Justice, no man in the Safe has
a right to hold his slave for o single hour
Slavery then, exists nowhere by the law of ma
ture. Wherever it exists at all, il 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. Ii con
fers no power, but, on the contrary, expressly
denies all power to the Government Of its ere
alton to establish or continue Slavery Con
gress has no more power. under the Constit;i-
ten, 10 make a slave than to make a king; no
more power TO establish Slavery than to estab-
lish the inquisition.
At the same time the Constitution conlers
no power on Congress, but, on tho contrary.
deases sil power te 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
habitants. The States, under the Constitution,
are absolutely Tree from all interference by
Congress in that respect, except, perhaps, in
the case of war or insurrectiOn and may legis-
late a. they please within the limits Of their
own Constitutions. They may allow Slavery,
II they please, Just as they may license other
wrongs But State laws, by which Slavery il
allowed and regulated can operate only within
the limits Of the State and can have no extra
territorial effect.
Sir, could quote the opinions of Southern
judges al infhaium, in support Of the doctrine