Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1861-01-17
SLAVE PROPERTY IN THE TERRI
TORIES

4 4onAG0
On the 18th of August, 184S, in the Sem
ate Chamber, Mr.. Webster said:
What do they (the siayeholdersl mean by
| property We certainly do not deprive
them ofthe privilege of going into these new
| ly acquired territories with all that, in the
general estimate of human society, in the
general, and cominon, and universal UNDER
| standing of mankind, is esteemed property.
| Not at all. The truth is just this. They
have IN their own States peculiar laws, which
| create property in persons. They have
system of local legislation on which slavery
rests; while everybody agrees that it is against
natural law, or at least against the common
understanding which prevails among men as
to what is natural law.
'The real meaning then of southern gentle
men, in making this complaint is, that they
cannot go into the territories of the United
States, Carrying with them their own peculiar
local law, law which creates property in
persons. This, according to their own state
ment, is all the ground of complaint they
have. Now, here, | think, gentlemen are I'M
just towards us. How unj Just they are, others
will Judge generations that will come after
us will Judge 1t will not be contended that
this sort of personal slavery exists by general
law. 1t exists only by local law. / do not
mean to deny the validity of that local law
where it is established; but | say it is, after
all, local law. 1t is nothing more. And
wherever that local law does not extend,
property in persons does not exist Well,
Sir, what is now the demand on the part of
our southern friends? They say 1--WE will
carry our local laws with us wherever we 90.
We insist that Congress does us injustice IN
less it establishes in the territory in which
we wish to 60, our own local law This de-
mand |, for one, resist and shall resist. at
goes upon the idea that there is an inequal-
ity, unless persons under this local law, and
holding property by authority of that law,
can 60 into new territory and there establish
that local law, to the exclusion of the general
law. Mr.. President, it was maxim of the
civil law, that between slavery and freedom,
freedom should always be presumed, and
slavery must always be proved. If any ques-
ton arose as to the status of an individual in
Rome, he was presumed to be free until he
was proved to be a slave, because slavery is
an exception to the general rule. Such, l
suppose, is the general law Ofmankind. An
Individual is to be presumed to be free, until
a law can be produced which creates owner
ship in his person. do not dispute the force
and validity Of the local law, as | have al
ready said but | say, it is matter to be
proved and therefore if individuals 90 in to
any part OF the earth it is to be proved that
they are not treemen, or else the presump-
ton is that they are.
is there nothing to be said on the other
side in relation to inequality Sir, from the
date of this constitution, and in the counsels
tha, formed and established this constitution,
and | suppose in all mems judgments since,
it is received as a settled truth, that slave la
Dor and free labor do not exist we'll together.
have before me a declaration of Mr.. Ma
son, in the convention that formed the conSti-
tuition, to that effect. Mr. Mason, as is well
known, was distinguished member from
Virginia He says that the objection to slave
labor is, that it puts free white labor in dis
repute that it causes labor to be regarded
as derogatory to the character of the free
white man, and that the free white man des-
Dses to work, to use his expression, where
slaves are employed. This is a matter of
great interest to the free States, if it be true,
as to a great extent it certainly is, that wher-
ever slave labor prevails, tree white labor is
excluded or discouraged. | agree that slave
labor docs not necessarily exclude free labor
totally. There is free white labor In Virgi-
MIA, Tennessee and other States, where most
OF the labor is done by slaves. But it neces-
sarIly loses something of its responsibility, by
the side OF, and when associated with, slave
labor. Wherever labor is mainly performed
by slaves, it is regarded as degrading to free
men. The freemen of the North, therefore,
have a deep interest in keeping labor free,
exclusively free, in the new territories
But, sir, let US look further into this al
legged inequality. There is no pretence that
southern people may not 60 into territory
which shall be subject to the ordinance OF
1897. The only restraint is that they shall
not carry slaves thither, and continue their
relation. They say this shuts them altogeth-
er out. Why, sir, there can be nothing more
inaccurate IN point of fact than this state
ment. | understand that one-halt the peo-
pie who settled Illinois are people, or de-
scendents of people, who came from the
southern States, and | suppose that one
third of the people OF Ohio are those, or de-
scendents of those, who emigrated from the
South; and | venture to say, that in respect
to those two States, they are at this day set
tied by people of southern origin in as great
portion as they are by people o. northern
origin, according to the general numbers and
proportion of people South and North. There
are as many people from the South in pro-
portion to the whole people OF the South, in
those States, as there are from the North, in
proportion to the whole people of the North.
There is then no exclusion OF southern peo-
Pile; there is only exclusion Of a peculiar To-
cal law. Neither in principle nor in fact is
there any inequality"
Judge Douglas, in 1850, said
But you say that we propose to prohibit
by law your emgrating to the Territories
with your property. We propose no such
thing. We recognize your right, in common
to tn ba Harrif<,.
with your property, and there hold and enjoy
it in subordination to the laws you may ind
in force in the country. Those laws, in
some respects, differ from our own, as the
la VS. of the various States of this Union vary,
on some points, from the laws of each other.
Some species of property are excluded by
law IN most OF the States, as well as Terrific
ries, as being unwise, immoral, or contrary
to the principles OF sound public policy. For
instance, the banker is prohibited from emf
grating to Minnesota, Oregon, or California,
with his bank. The bank may be property
by the laws of New York, but ceases to be so
when taken into State or Territory where
banking is prohibited by the local law. So,
ardent spirits, whisky, brandy, all the intox-
icating drinks, are recognized and protected
as property in most of the States, if not all
of them; but no citizen, whether from the
North or South, can take this species of pro-
perty with HIM, and hold, SELL or use 1t at
his pleasure in all the Territories, because it
is prohibited by the local LAWN Oregon by
the statutes of the Territory and in the Indian
country by the acts Of Congress. Nor can
man go there and hold his slave, for the same
reason. These laws and many others involve
ing similar principles, are directed against no
section, and impair the rights of no State in
the Union. They are laws against the intro
ducton, sale, and use of specific kinds of
property, whether brought from the North
or the South, or from foreign countries"
On this point Gen. Cass spoke as follows