Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1865-01-19


ritories and beyond the limits of the States
which was agitated in Congress at that
time. 1t is since the Inauguration of this
Administration that the question of the
abolition of slavery within the States has
grown up in the country.
Mr.. Cox-That will do for the gentleman;
because have the recommendation of Mr..
Buchanan upon that subject here. 1t is
more authentic than even his good memory.
1t is as follows: .,....-..
"An express recognition of the rights Of property
hereafter exist" ..r.r.... ..,i, .t..r ..
AS my valued friend will perceive, this
was not a question of the abolishment of
slavery. 1t was, however, question which
touched, through constitutional amend
ment the institution of slavery in the
States. The gentleman says the recon-
mendation was confined to slavery in the
Territories, and did not reach that in the
States. He will perceive his mistake. l
am not anxious to raise discussion with
my friends upon this side of the Chamber,
but | am entitled to be consistent with the
record l have made for eight years here. L
the slavery question by an amendment iu
pursuance of the fifth article of the Consti-
tuition. / have sought only to make its ex-
ercise judicious. t'''-.
The Abolitionists only declared in 1860
against 'any express recognition of the
right of property in man in the States
where it now exists or may hereafter exist"
Then the Abolitonists made the argument
ofmy colleagues Messrs. Ashley and Pen
dleton.l They denied the power. Itwas
and is so easy to argue against the power to
do thing which we do not like.
When Mr.. Buchanan, referring to the
oIn 70 nyf
operation to protect this right in the Terri
tories until admitted as States, and like
recognition of the right of the master to his
escaped slave, who objected? Who? Not
my colleague Mr.. Pendletonl and myself
For though we might have agreed with the
decision of the Supreme Court in Dred
Scott's case we desired such principles
established in the fundamental law. Why?
Because 1t was recommended, to use the
language of that day, "as an explanatory
amendment which would forever terminate
the existing dissensons and restore peace
and harmony among the States" Those
who desired not to terminate our troubles,
or to keep peace and avert war, denied the
power to enslave or to recognize slavery.
This side ofthe House labored, o how nobly,
but how vainly, to have the compromises
of that dark hour written with pencil of
light on the organic law, by the unim-
peached power of amendment, that North
and South might dwell in accord forever.
Again, ON the 2Sth of February, 1861, in
the hope of allaying the fears of northern
men, joint resolution was passed with my
colleagues Mr.. Pendleton'sl sanction and
vote-yeas 1873 to Go incorporating for an
amendment in the mode prescribed by the
present joint resolution, as follows
| CART. 10. No amendment shall be made to the Con-
which Congress
the power to abolish or interfere within any State
with the domestic institutions thereof, including
Of said State.'' = - -
This was voted for by South and North
douglas, Crittenden, Pugh, BOcock, and
Hunter. What did it mean? do not ask
what was its intention as a remedial meas
ure; as bill to quiet title; as a peace meas
ure. 1t did two things: first, it assumed to
| speak by amendment on domestic ques-
tion; secondly, in the very substance and
body of it, it recognized, without dissent
| from single voice, the po,cer to amend by
abolishing slavery in States, and it sought
to checkmate that power by adding it to the
exceptions of the fifth article. 1t was as if
it said, Congress, by the mode prescribed,
may propose amendments which shall be
valid as part of this Constitution, provi-
ded no amendment shall be made as to the
abolition Of and Interference Nth Stduery"-
Truly my colleague was right in requiring,
as a peace measure, such an expression as
an exception to the general power of
amendment. He knew the old maxim Of
construction, "the expression of one thing
is the exclusion of another" AS the Con-
stitution had excluded two subjects from
amendment, and had failed to exclude the
abolition OF slavery as sacredly unamenda-
BILE, it follows that the power to abolish was
given in the general grant. But the argu-
ment drawn from my colleagues former
vote or opinion is not conclusive, except
upon him, and only upon him upon the
frailest of all arguments, that, once in IA
vor of thing, he should always be in favor
of it. | shall be the last to press>the ad
honinem upon him. l.
Ineed not recall to the House the propo-
sitions of Mr.. Crttenden or their tenor. In
the preamble their object is stated. They
were intended to allay ''dissensions con-
cerning the rights and security OF the rights
of the slaveholding States" They propos-
ed to do this by constitutional provisions.
Above the latitude of 30 deg. 80 minutes
slavery was prohibited; south it was recog-
nized and protected. They denied to Con-
gress the right to abolishin the District and
in the States where the United States had
| jurisdiction. They proposed to protect
members of Congress and other Federal
officers in bringing their slaves here, to pro-
tect the Interstate slave trade and to pay
for fugitive slaves in certain cases. As if
| this were not enough to show the power
over this subject by amendment, and be-
cause these statesmen of 1860 knew the
power existed to abolish slavery in the
States, they provided: M aam stf
"Nofuture amendment of the Constitution shall
affect the five preceding articles nor the third par
tnfth thn Of thA Geot
the Constitution; nor the third paragraph of the
second section of the fourth article of said Consti
| tuition: and no amendment shall be made to the
Constitution which shall authorize or give to Con-
gr IS any power TO abolish or terfere with slavery
| allowed or permitted"
Thus they strove to make the lines of
slavery irrevocable by amendment; to for
| ever preserve the three-fifths representa-
| tion Of slaves and the provision for the re-
turn of fugitive slaves. Who questioned
the power then? Not my colleague. Not
| man on this side in Congress then or now.
Oh |! it was then to be used for a patriotic
purpose; for salvation, and not for destruc-
! ton. But is it less power? AIN to give
up the sweet shine of the sun because 1t
NAV breed ,nialaria9 Am to surrender the
benignant element Of fire because it may
| consume as well as comfort? Am / to be
| driven by the accidents of war or the vi
| cissitudes of time to change my opinion OF
| the Constitution and its powers? Ab,isus
non tolll us,s. i will cling to the power,
and make my argument, when choose to
make it, against its abuse. =. - s,,s -,
| Again, the Peace Convention sent its
proposition to Congress, inhibiting any
amendment of the Constitution on most OF
the subjects connected with slavery above
recited:1 They were ofterediinsthe House