The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1856-05-08
CONGRESSIONAL.
SPEECH OF HON. A. E. MAXWELL

Delivered in the House of Representatives May l. 1856
| sLAyERY-KAEsAs-PARrI THEREoN
The House being in the Committee of the Whole the
state of the Union
Mr. MAXWELL said:
Mr. CHAIRMAN: viii Continue the discussion which
renewed few days since by the gentleman from Ohio,
Mr. STANTON and has been kept up by other gentlemen
on the same side. We may attach what Importance we
please TO other matters but is impossible to that
the subjects Of that dscussionquesons connected with
the rights OF the southern portion of this Union and with
the government of Kansasare to oVershadow all others
They do oyershadow all Others here and every prepara
ton abroad shows that they do the elsewhere
at least Tor several months TO Nor do wonder al
ths for they questions not only big with the fate OF
parties but perhaps involving the fate of government
itself shall address myself to those questions consider
ing not only duty here but having reference also to
the action Of the people in the coming elections
If before heard the gentleman from Ohio mr. STAN
ToS1 and the gentleman from Pennsy ylyania Mr. RrcHIE
had not already chosen the line OF remark TO be pursued
by me- could not better maintain the have risen
to advocate than by presenting counter view as to tho
historical facts upon which they dwelt Had given my
mind to the investigation of those facts should have APP
piled this test at the outset whether in the legislation Of
Congress- in all that line of what is called continuous egs
aon to the end there has been in any instance
except In that of the Missouri restriction, legislation which
destructive of existing rights prohbtory OF the
exercise of such rights 1t is my belief educed from
the history of legislation in respect to Territories that
with the single exception named Congress has declined to
exercise any power destroy the rights to prohibit the
exercise of rights claimed by the southern portion of the
Union.
gress very after the adoption Of the constitution in
passing bill! to authorize territorial government for the
Northwestern Territory; but in that nothing was said
about that part of the ordinance of 1889 which prohibited
slavery there This simply declining the part OF
Congress, to onch the subjeco egsate upon the sub
eet at aIl-actng, presume, upon the idea that the
solemn compact between the State Of Virginia and the
then existing government of the United States ought
to be held binding upon the subsequent government
1t cannot be justly inferred from this that Congress
acted upon the belief that the constitution author
lied it, of its own proper power to deal adversely
with slavery. And so, | think it would be found,
in reference TO other instances of legislation it has
all along declined TO act against slavery, although often
mportuned thereto and hence the continuous line of pre-
cedent claimed having established the power in Oon-
gr to egsate slavery out of the Territories or to reach
it otherwise does not in fact exist Nor has its exercise
power upon other important matters such as have been
mentioned prove full and unlimited power all mat
in the Territories gone to the extent insisted upon as
to this for in regard TO them its action has been pro-
ective of rights, and therefore must be distinguished
from action against slavery, nasmuch as that would be
destructive of rights Congress in all its legislation must
act with view to the ends of the government and look
ing strictly TO those ends, it would be difficult to show
that ii has any business in the way of shaping the domes
tic character of either territorial State Institutions,
But as | before said my mind having been directed to
other aspects of the questions before shall not pretend
offer anything like full reply to the views of the gen
temen from Pennsylvania Mr.. RIToHIE and Ohio lMr.
STASros the proper teachings Of past legislation by
Congress There has been heretofore such difference OF
opinion the purpor of past legislation and as to the
views OF certain leading fathers Of the repubcboth sides
claiming these for authority to sustain their own respec
tive conflicting yeps-and there is wide difference
now hardly probable that discussion Of these points
this time will any towards adjusting them
We cannot what has been the purport OF that
legislation, TO what Washington Jefferson would
do II called to heal preseu diysoni and hence pre-
fer pass all such questions and to 90 at once TO deal
with facts opinions preludces passions and all this com
pex web of difficulties they actually exist shaking and
disractng the country.
Primarily the difference between those who are in
roversy upon the slavery question to be found in their
conflicting views OF the nature Justice and propre OF
slavery itself Northern belief holds 1t to be an evil and
curse while in the South 1t is regarded no offence
against either the laws Of God humanity and since dis
cussion has been forced the subject and have been
driven examine it only connected with the social
and economical interests OF the white in regions
where slavery most naturally hrves but in the light OF
facts which show the real condition Of the negro In the
southern mind moro Of late years than beore) Is
ally adopting the conclusion that the institution Is posi-
tive good Thus radically opposed In opinion and there
being likelihood that they will agreeior the more
this subject discussed aud agtaed especially under the
preudices and passions which iname large portions Of
the people both sides the wider will grow the separa-
ton Of their mnds-wha be done TO prevent that u
innate fearful conflict which such anagobism orebodesf
WIN You legsate upon the assumption that one wrong
and the other rght2 Consider the condition into which
this controversy is brought and think gentlemen will be
ready to agree with that such legislation would not
be tolerated either side Reconcement Of belief is inn
possblei persistence in angry strife will be fatal and the
question a where the parties meet 10 gain escape
saving both the constitution and the Union.
On both sides sir the wachword Of the day Is "aggres-
sion !" Northern men complain Of IT, and the South
plains Of H. the former because Of supposed right to hold
and keep territory free from the Introduction Of
slavery which right It alleged has been violated by the
adoption OF policy which renders slavery possible in the
Territories the latter because Of claim TO equal partc
patton in the benefits and enoymeuts Of that common ter
rtory which sought be denied by antsayery pro-
vsOCs and prohibitions The Of argument pursued
by gentlemen the other side shows that II we look to
the constitution for something pertaining to the issue thus
made 20 express and positive that may be mscd
in regard 10 IT, will look In vain. The express words
are not there tell what wasiniended Perhaps II was
not anticipated that such issue would arise Perhaps,
Participated il hoped that ii would be decided Ia
spirit OF Justice equality and forbearng patriotism such
had brought forth and flushed the constitution itseE
But though nothing express and positive be found
to decide this point what do know s that there IS
nohiug Ia the constitution to forbid the equal enjoyment
OF common territory By all citizens Of the United States
general proposition, would not bo denied even by those
gentlemen who adverse TO the institution OF slavery
We know further that the spirit In which that consutu-
ton was adopted was Of federation Of nil conflicting
interests and all conflicting vcws Of policy and, also That
Il intended that those acting under the constitution
should be guarded oalousy against nhicting anything
like State sectional inequality And yet further Ia or
der that s hand might be said from the exercise Of any
but impartial power IL intended to limit the scope OF
the government and TO withhold from II the possession OF
any power which could be used otherwise than impartial
ly With such knowledge OF the limitations and spirit OF
our constitution and seeing that clearly recognises the
slave interest and throws shield OF protection over " -
strange that southern should hold any interference
even incidentally against that interest TO be unwarranted
and improper Is II strange in them to feel that what
the constitution recognizes secures protects men who owe
feay II should not barshy condemn or rudey touchE
II we would determine Alright between these parties, we
must look TO their positions and claims they present