The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1860-01-26


once repeal the laws of Canada against slavery
and establish it there, so that q man from Vir-
ginia or South Carolina could take his slaves at
once into the territory of Canada, and hold them
there, beyond the power of Congress, or any other
human power protected by the Federal Consti-
tuition. Nor do we believe that it has any such
power over the Mexican laws in the Territory
OF Utah, California, New Mexico, or any other
territory we may acquire from Mexico, as, of its
own force, to repeal, at once, those laws which
abolished slavery there, and re-establsh the
law OF slavery, so that you can take your slaves
into them, without any positive law authorizing
1t, and hold them there by virtue of the Consti-
tuition.
If this ground is conceded, where will the peo-
pie OF the North stand five concede the ground
that the Constitution of the United States, of its
own force, would authorize you to carry slaves
into Canada if we should purchase it tomorrow,
the same Constitution would authorize you to
carry 1t into Wisconsin, and we could not hinder
1t and why? Before answering this question,
perhaps ought to say that the Supreme Court
In the opinion which they have delivered, in my
humble judgment, on a fair construction of that
opinion, have yet gone no further than to
deny to Congress and to the people of the Terri
tory the power to prohibit slavery; but Mr.. Bu-
chanan, in the message from which read the
extract, goes altogether beyond the Supreme
not only that neither Congress nor any other hu-
man power has the power to prohibit its entry,
but that the Constitution, under the decision of
the Supreme Court, with its own positive force,
guarantees the right to carry and hold slaves in
the Territories which we now have or may here
after acquire. He says:
The right has been established of every citizen to take
his property Of any kind including slaves
Territories belonging equally all the Coufed-
eac and TO have protected there under the Federal Con-
stitution."
He does not stop with Chief Justice Taney and
the judges of the Supreme Court, who deny that
Congress or the Territory has the power to legis-
late, and therefore pronounce the Missouri re-
striction unconstitutional; but he goes further,
and undertakes to make 1T out that the Consti-
tuition of the United States, by its own positive
force, guarantees slavery in all the Territories.
But to return to the question. If it has that
effect in Territory, it has it in a State. The
Constitution of the United States was made for
States, and not for Territories at all. 1t only
mentions them to give Congress the power to
govern them. 1t is the paramount law of the
land, anything in any State Constitution or law
to the contrary Notwithstanding; and if the
Constitution of the United States has the power
to repeal the law against slavery in Canada,
should we acquire it, and to guaranty the right
TO take and hold slaves there, it can repeal the
Constitution of Wisconsin restricting slavery,
and guaranty the right to take and hold slaves
there. Does not the Constitution mean the same
thing everywhere ?-the same in Wisconsin and
in Kansas2 And do you not recollect, sir, that
the very moment the bred Scott decision was
pronounced, the newspaper in Washington
which claimed to represent the views of the Ad-
ministration-Ire refer to the Union-declared that
every State law and Constitution of every State
in the Union abolshing slavery was under that
decision, against the Constitution of the United
States, and therefore void. There is no half
way with this doctrine; there is no middle
ground; there is no neutrality in it. tell you,
he that is not with US is against US. You under
stand it, sir You claim that your doctrine car
ries slavery into every Territory by force of the
Constitution and it is because you claim this,
because you are asserting this aggressive doc
trine in favor of slavery, that we are prepared
to resist it by our action, to resist it in all law
full and in all honorable ways. We are pledged
to do so, and we expect to do so.
Mr. President the truth is, that revolution,
based upon this novel idea, that slavery is
blessing, has been inaugurated in this country
within the last twelve years, is now in progress,
and has not been altogether bloodless either.
1t was this same aggressive idea which led
Mr. Atchison in Missouri in 1853, months be-
fore the Nebraska bill ever saw the light, to
proclaim to the people of Western Missouri
that slavery is thing of divine right-(the same
doctrine which afterwards eliminated in the Lee
compton Constitution;) that it is above and be-
fore all Constitutions that Constitutions are to
protect it, not to abolish it; and assuming this,
it was resolved to force it into the Territory of
Kansas at all hazards, " at whatever sacrifice of
blood or treasure" to use the language of the
resolution of meeting which he addressed
long before the passage of the Kansas Ne
braska act. There is the place where, and
that was the time when, the war was declared
on this question. 1t was to carry out this ag-
gressive policy to carry the institution of sla-
very into Territories free from it, made free by
the law of Congress itself, that that act was
passed. shall not go over what followed we
too familiar with that bloody chapter in our
history. That aggression, too successful in the
beginning, failed in the end Republicansm,
taking the alarm, recognized itself, in 1856,
and, though defeated in the canvass, achieved a
victory. BY its moral power il made some of
the chosen instruments of that aggression stand
back aghast, and shrink from the consequences
of their own work. The revolutionary leaders
were beaten, with the Administration in their
hands. Kansas is free.
We now say, | repeat, to our friends from
the South, that, while it is your right to change
your opinions on this question, when you I'M
dertake to force those opinions upon the coun-
try for the purpose of compelling the Govern
ment of the United States to revolutionlze its
whole policy, to carry out aggressive policy
for slavery extension everywhere, it is inten-
ton and full purpose TO resist this revolution
in the Government, and to overcome it--peace-
fully of course, but we expect to overcome it.
Mr.. President, have detained the Senate long
er than / anticipated; but there is contained in
those few sentences of the annual message which
have read, that which covers the whole ground
and if adopted and acquiesced in by the Ameri- |
can people-which, in my opinion, it will not
be-the Calhoun revolution would be complete
there would be no longer any free Territories
all would be slave Territories there would no
longer be any free States all would be slave
States
The honorable Senator from Virginia, not now
in his seat, Mr.. Mason applied to the free States
generally term which can hardly suffer to pass
without notice. He called them "the servile
States" / know not in what sense the honor
able gentleman intended to apply this term to
the State which represent; but in whatever
sense, shall never apply any term OF opprobrium
or disrespect to any of the States and certainly
never to the State from which he comes No,
sir; Virginia is State in whose history and
achievements we take pride, and for whose opin- !
ions, for whose earlier opinions, we hold the
highest respect. Wisconsin, the State which |
represent, was born of Virginia; she was born
in the day of her pride, and when the true prin-
ciples of Virginia found place in her history, and
were expressed by her living statesmen Sir, | |
will employ no opprobrious epthet towards Vr- !
gna-never. 1t is a State in the memory of |
whose great names we of Wisconsin feel proud |
To Virginia we owe debt of gratitude we can
never repay. She has saved u.s. by her mas
terly policy in the day of the infancy of the
Northwestern Territory, from being cursed by
the presence of that institution which, without
speaking dsrespectfully of her, l may be permit
ted to say, in my humble opinion, is sucking her
very life's blood.