Daily Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1860-1862, 1861-04-09
SPEECH
HON. G. w. SUMMERS,

CcoNrINUED.]

ference at Washington. to the Committee OIL
Federal Relations !; and, upon that question
the gentleman from Kanawha is entitled t.
the floor.
Mr.. SUEMERs, of Kanawha. Mr.. President
fool that owe an apology to the Conven
ton for its indulgence and attention. l Gel
tainly expected to have concluded the re
marks felt called upon to submit, darini
the sitting of yesterday, but wishing to COM
ply with the pleasure of others, yielded t
motion for adjournment.
In the review of the adjustment agreed MP
on by the Peace Conference at Washington,
had reached the fifth article in the series, de
signing, as / had done in regard to the othe
sections, TO express my opinions on tnos
which remain to be examined. and which
| were intended, together, to constitute,
adopted, the thirteenth amendment OF tn
Constitution of the United States. will pro
coed to express my views In regard to the re
naming parts.
The fifth section, as prepared, is in thes
words
..The foreign slave trade is hereby foreve
prohibited and it shall be the duty of Con
gress to pass laws to prevent the importation
of slaves, collies, or persons held to servic'
or labor. into the United States and Terrific
ries from places beyond the limits thereof
remark, Mr.. President, in the first place
that the vote of the Commissioners from Vir
ginia, was cast as uRit against this section
1t is not my purpose, nor indeed am L pre-
pared, if it were proper, to state the motive
governing the several gentlemen composin.
the Commission from Virginia, in regard Il
that vote. II is sufficient that say for my
self, that / entirely concur in the statemen
found in the explanatory letter of my late
colleague. Judge Brockenbrough. In speak
ing of this section, he says:
THE section prohibiting the foreign slave
trade, by constitutional amendments, is OBJ
jectionable, simply because it was wholly un
necessary. Even the Confederate States o
the South, now constituting an independent
Government of slave States, de factO, if not d
jure, have prohibited this traffic"
:" The advoctes for re-opening 1t IN any o.
the border slave States are very few, and
there was no sort of necessity OF lnterpola
ting this provision, which had no connection
with the pending controversy, into thls
scheme of adjustment"
We do not know the precise attitude of the
government at Montgomery towards the Al
a veto by the President of some bill relating
to that subject. L have not seen the grounds
of the veto, nor do know what was the exact
character of the bill.
II will be remembered. Mr.. President, that
the Con .titution of the United States, itself,
contains no inhibition of the foreign slave
trade. The only provision relating to the
subject is this i" The migration or importa-
ZION of such persons as any of the States now
existing shall think proper to admit. shall not
be prohibited by Congress prior to the year
one thousand and eight hundred and eight"
We all know that after The arrival of the
period at which they might legitimately act,
Congress did prohibit the slave trade, made
it piracy to engage in it, and that it remains
a prohibited traffic from that time to this.
was of opinion myself, that it was matter
to be left to Congressional regulation as
heretofore left under the provisions OF the
Constitution.
| have, however, heard objections made to
this section, which do not strike me as well
founded It seems to be supposed by some
gentlemen, that in the event the seeded
States continue out of the Union, and their
should be recognized by the re
Government, this provision might.
in some form, operate against the transfer OF
slave property from those seeded States
into the slave States still within the limits of
the Union.
Mr.. President, it must be quite obvious
that in devising amendments to the Constitu-
ton, looking to the settlement OF any OF the
questions of difficulty and controversy which
now disturb us, the Conference was constraln-
ed to look to the Government as an unbroken
one: that it was compelled to propose amend
ments to the Constitution of the country as
it now is, without changed OF boundary, and
that it would have been incompetent, as 1t
would have been inexpedient and improper,
to provide a proposed amendment to the Con
stitution of the United States, based upon
the hypothesis that it was already, or was
soon to be. disintegrated. What / mean to
say is, that in proposing amendments to the
as matter of course, the Con-
ference was bound to look to the whole
country as it is, and not as it possibly may
be.
But again, sir-my understanding of this
section was at the time, and is now, that 1t is
4 prohibition directed against the foreagn
laUe trade-the African slave trade-as
raffic not hereafter not TO be allowed. The
provision is that "the foreign slave trade is
hereby forever prohibited and it shall be
he duty of Congress to pass laws to prohibit
he Importation of slaves, coolies, or persons
eld to labor. into the United States and the
erritories from places beyond the limits
hereof" Now, is it not the fair mode OF
obstruction, is it not the legitimate and
My mode of construction, to take every part
nd portion of this paragraph together and IN
ari n4Qteria 2 When it is made the duty OF
congress to pass laws prohibiting the lmpor-
alton of slaves from beyond the limits OF the
United States, it is the importation from for
ign countries which Is denounced. 1t is d.
ected against the African, the foreign slave
rade. This, unquestionably, was the pur-
ose in the minds of those who framed and
Imported the amendment in the Conference
Now. MIR. President, so far as the objection
ests upon the idea, that in the event of the |
ecogRition of the independence of these |
outhern States which have seeded from |
he Union, that the limits and boundaries of |
ne United States are then changed, and that |
MS constitutional amendment, looking not |
} the hour of its enactment, or its ratifica- |
on, but speaking at the moment of its exc |
utiou, might be construed to prevent the |
ringing of slaves from South Carolina, |
Georgia, Louisiana and other Southern |
tates into Virginia and other slave States, |
) coming from beyond the limits of the /
nited States, have this remark 10 make
I the first place, the course of trade in
ayes have been and always will be, not
ON the cotton and sugar States to the agri-
ultural slave States of the Union, but, e con-
.rso from the border States TO the cotton, the |
agar, and the rice States. There never |
as been, there is no reason to suspect there /
YER will be system of slave trade by which /
e of the border slave States are to receive |
Iayes from that region. We all very well |
now that the productions of slave labor in
hat region of the country are greatly more
rofitable than with US, and that by conse-
uence the price of negroes is always higher |
i the cotton and sugar Estates than it is in |
ne border States.
But, again, sir-the objection that Virginia |
wners working slaves on a cotton and sugar |
lantation in the Southern States that have |
sceded, might perhaps not be permitted to |
ring them back to Virginia, do not think
valid one Take the caso of Agsanticraor, Ie-
ding in Virginia and working a por-
ON of his slaves on cotton plantation in
Mississippi or on sugar plantation in Lou
lana, and who might find it convenient to |
the point of labor for these hands |
ON time to time, rendering it necessary to
ass back and forth with them from the State
f his plantation to Virginia; In my opinion
his section would not apply to any such
use. | think in the first place it applies
ono 10 the foreign slave trade, and in the