The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1859-12-22

Mr.. TRUMBULL. " Give legal existence to
Slavery in Territory" is the language We
deny that the right to reclaim fugitive proves
the existence of Slavery in Territory, any more
than it does in State. We have expressly pro-
vided by our Constitution, in the State of Illinois,
that Slavery shall not exist there and yet will
say to the Senator from Alabama, that if a slave
of his escapes to the State of Illinois, we recog-
mise the right of the owner to reclaim him, and
recognise the same right in a Territory.
Mr.. CLAY. If the Senator will pardon me
for interrupting him, will say that in the plat
form of that party from which just now read,
the word is I" assistance" not {" existence :" and
/ have never yet, in any platform of that party
which has come under my view, seen the word
existence" 1t is assistance" 1t is so pub
lished in that which have before me, and have
never seen it otherwise.
Mr.. TRUMBULL. The word is "existence T"
in the platform as 1 have it, and l never under
stood it to be otherwise. have the platform as
used in the Northern States. If it has been diff
ferently published, / was not aware of it.
Mr.. CLAY. Still, if the Senator will pardon
me, suppose the copy l have is wrong and the
word should be existence" as claimed by him,
ask him, then, how ne can reconcile with his
theory, as proclaimed in this platform, of the
right of all men to liberty, and the obligation of
the Federal Government to secure that right
WAbulu Tue 1tETlIOTl6S, Tue OUllHd-
ton to restore fugitive slave.
Mr.. TRUMBULL. Mr.. President, will try to
do so. will give him my understanding of il
calmly and impartially as l able. l un-
derstand that part of the platform to be the as
sertion of great natural right, and that is what
understand by those words in the Declaration
of independence wherein 1t is declared that " all
men created equal, and endowed by their
Creator" not by the Government, " with certain
inalieDable rights, among which are life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness" Now, do not
understand that our fathers supposed they could
carry out these principles perfectly in govern
mont. Every Government, as had occasion to
say in this debate before, is an encroachment,
more or less, on the natural rights OF man. What
did they mean2 Why, sir, the men who signed
their names to that immortal Declaration of In
dependence were men who either themselves or
their ancestors had fed from despotisms in the
Old World. They had seen men claiming to rule
by Divine right as kings they had seen another
class of men claiming to rule and lord it over
the mass of their fellow beings by hereditary
right, and they intended to put it upon record in
this formation of the Government which they
were making, that their posterity in all time
might know that they recognised no Divine right
of one man over another, no hereditary right of
lords and mobiles to trample upon their fellow
men. Naturally, no such right can exist. 1t is
but the assertion of power growing out of the
organization of Governments Our ancestors in
tended to form Government near the great
principles of natural right as they could. AS
Mr.. Jefferson said, the most perfect Government
on earth would be one which secured TO hon.
est labor the fruits of its own industry, and in
terfered no more than was necessary to prevent
anarchy, or the encroachments of the strong
upon the weak. l do not quote his beautiful
language, but the idea. This is what under
stand to be meant by this platform of principles
in that respect.
Mr.. CLAY. Will the Senator pardon me for
asking him further question:
Mr.. TRUMBULL. Undoubtedly.
Mr.. CLAY. l do not mean to interrupt him /;
but as he seems disposed to be candid and COM
municative l will trouble him with a further
question. would be glad if he can explain how
he can reconcile with the personal integrity of
the trainers of the Declaration of independence
and the Federal Constitution their holding slaves,
and retaining them as slaves, and distributing
them by their last will and testament among
their children, with their declaration that those
men were entitled to life and liberty; and if he
can reconcile these matters, | would ask him,
whether he understands the words
of the Declaration of Independence, or Of the
Federal Constitution, which declares that the
Constitution was formed for ourselves and our
pOSItTlIy: 10 emOrdC0 dlSO the negroes
Mr.. TRUMBULL. | reconcile what seems to
the gentleman 10 be a contradiction in this way !:
Our fathers had to deal with circumstances as
they were. They declared great fundamental
principles. The Senator from Alabama will
agree with me, that any evil is wrong; that any
encroachment upon the natural rights of any of
US land our Government restraints US more or
less) is only to be justified upon the ground that
it is necessary for organized society and for
government, and that men could not live to-
gether, except in eternal quarrels, unless we had
a government of some kind but that does not
initiate against the truth that the great Author
of all created US equal and with the same rights
Mr.. CLAY The Senator does not seem to
apprehend the force of my question. Perhaps l
did not put it fairly. According to the declara-
ton in your platform, as read, | understand your
party to maintain that the negro enjoys, in COM
mon with the white man, an inalienable right to
liberty. You denounce the violation of that
right as a crime, a sin in the eye of Heaven,
and a crime against the laws of man violation
of the doctrines of Christianity. You denounce
it as a twin relic of barbarism with polygamy
Now, ask you how you can reconcile it with
the personal integrity of the trainers either of
the Declaration of independence or of the Fed
eral Constitution, that they sanctioned crime
at the same time that they protested against it.
Mr.. TRUMBULL. Mr.. President, | am salts
fed that | am not understood by the Senator
from Alabama. | say that the negro has the
same natural rights that have; and now I say
it is not crime, under all circumstances to hold
a negro in slavery.
Mr.. CLAY. Why, then, does the Senator'S
party denounce it as twin relic of barbarism
with polygamy2 Is not that crime2 Do not
your laws punish it? Do not the laws of my
State punish it2 And if Slavery is equal in ini-
rhx-o
or all the States punish it?
Mr.. TRUMBULL. We would punish polygamy
in Illinois a: crime and we would punish the
holding of slave in Illinois as a crime
Mr. CLAY. Will the Senator pardon me2
do not mean to be oficious, and | do not intend
to be offensive.
Mr.. TRUMBULL. do not take it So 1 am
very glad, indeed, to be Intercepted wish to
express my qualification at Senator'S efforts to
obtain explanations.
Mr.. CLAY. l wish the Senator to explain
whether, according to his code of ethics, or that
of the party to which he belongs, it becomes
any civilized, any Christian Government, to rec
ognise crime whether there be any circum-
stances under which crime can be justified ex-
cused, or palliated?
Mr.. TRUMBULL. Mr.. President, 1 will not
cavil about the word crime" l do not call it
a crime in citizens of the South to hold slaves
at all.
Mr.. CLAY. Is not polygamy crime2
Mr.. TRUMBULL. Polygamy is a crime under
some circumstances, but not always a crime.
take it that polygamy is no crime in Turkey.
Mr.. CLAY. Thank you for that concession,
in this Christian country.
Mr.. TRUMBULL. / think it is no crime in
Turkey. 1t is crime in our Christian country.
We regard it so, but other nations do not regard
it as crime. do not regard the holding of
slaves as they are held in the Southern States
of this Union, and in many other countries, as
necessarily criminal. That is not the term |
apply to it. think it is wrong to those per-