The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1856-01-17
THE NATIONAL ERA: WASHINGTON D. G, JANUARY H. 1856

tlon OF slavery TO the Territories of the United
States. My understanding is based on the dec
laratlon OF Mr.. Webster, that even the Constitu-
ton OF the United States itself does not go to
the Territories until it is carried there by an
act OF Congress. Standing on the principle of
the English law governing the same interests. I
do not believe that the Constitution of the Uni
ted States carries to any Territory of the United
States any right to hold slaves there.
In order, sir, that my answer should be full
and satisfactory, l ought, perhaps, to put the
negative OF the proposition of the distinguished
gentleman who leads the Government party ON
this floor and in this crisis. L recognise the
right, sir, to protection of property on the part
OF the South, as well as on the part of the North.
IN the Territories of the United States: and
when speak of property, mean that which is
considered property by universal law; / do not
mean that which is property only because it is
held as such under the laws of particular
State, and which loses its character of property
so soon as it extends beyond the limits of that
State, except under certain reservations cover
ed by the Constitution of the United States
When speak of property, / do not refer to that
species. / describe that which is recognised
as property by universal laws of men, and not
that which Is property only when it is made
such by local laws of limited sections of the
country. l have no disposition to disturb its
existence-no purpose to diminish or increase
it there. will acknowledge all its rights there,
accepting for that purpose the charts establish,
ed by Southern statesmen but deny that it
Is such property as, independent of local law or
Congressional enactment, is protected by the
Constitution In the Territories of the United
States.
L have nothing further to say on this very
nice and delicate question. / believe that the
Of INIT d IL
to do justice to all sections of the country-to
the South equally with the North. / am for
that today; and | adopt the language of my
friend, Mr.. Richardson, who has always treat
ed me with distinguished courtesy in all discus
sions on this subject, that we should do Justice
to the South as well as to the North In no
speech or declaration that has fallen from nv
lips, so far as l can remember it, have | ever
expressed different sentiment but, sir. can
not shut out from my memory the great fact
that the Constitution of the United States is an
instrument of Freedom, contemplated as such
by Its trainers, and interpreted as such by
all men of the South and the North until
within the last few years. 1t is a chart of
Freedom, established to secure the blessings of
liberty to ourselves and our posterity, giving
liberty to the States to do what they shall think
to be proper within their own localities, under
such circumstances as to them shall seem to
be right and just, but claiming no right and
conceding no right to them to carry their own
peculiar institutions beyond the limitations
conferred by the doctrine of the sovereignty of
States.
No, sir The Constitution of the United
States is an instrument, not of immediate but
of ultimate and universal Freedom. 1t was so
contemplated by the great men who framed it /;
and the world has so regarded it. The nation
al flag, that is its symbol, that makes the land
over which it floats, in whatever quarter of the
globe, so long as it covers an American citizen,
American territory, is the banner of ultimate
and universal Liberty-its white and red folds
symbols of Revolutionary trials, of the crests of
victory, and the blood of sacrifice. Nav its
starry union forever stand as lustrous and i'm
perishable as the golden fires of Gods frma-
ment. Great applause. That is my answer
to that question.
The Clerk read as follows:
hat in the territory acquired from Mexico
and France (including Kansas and Nebraska)
the Missouri restriction was necessary to make
the territory free, because Slavery existed there
under France at the time Of the acquisition,
but that the Kansas and Nebraska bill, which
repeats that restriction, but neither legislates
Slavery into those Territories nor excludes it
therefrom, in his opinion, leaves those Terrific
ries without either local or constitutional law
protecting Slavery; and that, therefore, the
kansas-N ebraska bill promotes the formation
of slave States in Kansas and Nebraska?"
Mr.. Banks. l did not see that question, Mr..
Clerk until it was brought to me by page
from the desk. 1t is but repetition of the first
interrogatory, with the addition of statement
of tact In regard to that statement | will
say that it is doubted whether the institution of
Slavery existed in those Territories at the time
they were acquired Without going into the
question whether France, by the decree of
1894, abolished the institution of Slavery
there, l will say that, if it were necessary that
the Congress of the United States should inter
dict that institution in those Territories in
order to make them free, / think that Congress
was right in doing it. If it were necessary, in
order to give to the South the right to carry
the institution of Slavery there, that the inter
dict of 1920 should be removed, think that
the Congress of 1853 was wrong in making
that repeal; and l cannot, sir, but say, with
the light that has come to me upon this ques-
ton, that the interdict of 1920 forbade and
abolished the institution of Slavery, if it exist
ed there that the repeal of that prohibition in
1853, inasmuch as it allowed Slavery to 90
there under certain possible circumstances, was
an act not promotve of the formation of free
States. That, sir, is my answer to that ques-
ton.
Mr.. Fuller, Of Pennsylvania, remarked that
he cordially approved the resolution adopted
yesterday, on motion of the gentleman from
Tennessee. Early in the session, he had felt it
his duty in justice to himself and to those with
whom he had been acting, to declare the opin-
ions he entertained, and the course he should
pursue, upon certain questions Of public policy.
But he desired to say now, what he believed
was known to majority, if not all of those
who had honored him with their confidence,
that he had been ready at any and all times to
withdraw from this protracted contest. He had
felt unwilling to stand, or to appear to stand,
in the way of any fair organization of the body.
In answer to the specific interrogatories that
had been presented, he would say, as to the
first, that he did not regard the Kansas Nebras-
ka bill as promotive of the formation of free
States and he would further say, that he did
not believe it was promotive of the formation
of slave States.
In reply to the second inquiry, he would state
that he had never, and did not now, advocate
the constitutionality of the Wilmot Provso. He
had never committed himself to the position,
"that if Territorial bills silent upon the SUBJ
ject Of Slavery land leaving the Mexican laws
to operate) were defeated, he would vote for
bills with the Wilmot Proviso in them" This
question related to the legislation of the dis
tinguished gentleman from Illinois. What he
(Mr. +. had to say upon that subject was, that
he was not member of that Congress, and
had never taken any position upon that SUBJ
ject heretofore; but he was willing, in all frank
ness and candor, to do so now, and would do
so with great Difference to the opinions of wiser
and better men. Slavery existed before the
Constitution, and, in his Judgment, now exist
ed independent of that instrument. When the
people Of the confederated States met, by their