Year: 1860

Speech of Daniel Webster,
DELIVERED IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE,
AUGUST II, 1s49.


So much for the parliamentary ques-
ton. Now there are two or three pollt-
ical questions arising in this case, which
I wish to state dispassi!o9nately; not to
argue. but to state. 1the honorable
member from Georgia (Mr. Berrien), for
whom l have great respect, and with
whom it is my delight to cultivate per-
sonal friendship, has stated with great
propriety the Importance OF this ques-
ton. (The exclusion Of Slavery from
the Territories.) He has said it is a
question interesting to the South and
to the North, and one which may very
we'll also attract the attention OF man
kind. He has not stated any part OF
this too strongly. 1t is such question.
Without doubt, it is question which
may we'll attract the attention OF man
kind. On the subject involved in this
debate the whole world is just now asleep.
1t is wide awake; and l agree with the
honorable member, that, if what is now
proposed to be done by US who resist
this amendment is, as he supposes, TN
just and Injurious to any portion OF this
community, or against its constitutional
rights, that injustice should be presented
to the civilized world, and we, who con-
cur in the proceeding, ought to submit
ourselves to its rebuke. am glad that
the honorable gentleman proposes to re-
fer this question to the great tribunal
of Modern Civilization, as well as the
great tribunal of the American people.
It is proper. 1t is question of 1nagni-
tude enough, to all the civilized nations
of the earth, to call from those who sup
port the one side or the other, a state
ment of the grounds upon which they
act.


Now I propose to state as briefly as
can the grounds upon which I proceed,
historical and constitutional. In the
first place, to view the matter histori-
cally. The constitution founded in 1871,
and the government under it, organized
1889, do recognize the existence of
Slavery in certain States then belonging
to the Union; and a particular descrip
tion of slavery. hope that what [ am
about to say may be received without
any supposition that I intend the slight
est disrespect. But this particular de-
scription of Slavery does not, [ believe,
now exist in Europe, nor in any other
civilized portion of the habitable globe.
1t is not predial slavery. 1t is not anal
ogous to the case of the predial slaves
glebe adscripti of Russia or Hungary, or
other States 1t is peculiar system of
personal Slavery, by which the person
who is called slave is transferable as a
chattel, from hand to hand. l speak OF
this as a fact. And l will say further,
perhaps other gentlemen may remember
the instances, that although Slavery as a
system of servitude attached to the earth,
exists in various countries of Europe, l
am not at the present moment aware of
any place on the globe in which this
property of man in a human being as a
slave, transferable as chattel, exists,
except America.


Now, that it existed in the form in
which it still exists in certain States, at
the formation of this Constitution, and
that the trainers of that instrument, and
those who adopted it, agreed that as far
as it existed it should not be disturbed
or interfered with by the general gov
ernment, there is no doubt.


The Constitution Of the United States
recognizes it as an existing fact-an ex-
isting relation between the Inhabitants
of the Southern States. | do not call 1t
an constitution" because that term is
not applicable to it; for that seems to
imply voluntary establishment. When
I first came here it was matter Of fire
quent reproach to England, the mother
country, that Slavery had been entailed
upon the colonies by her, against their
consent, and that which is now consid-
cred a cherished /" institution was then
regarded as, [ will not say an evil, but
an entailment upon the colonies of the
policy of the mother country against
their wishes.


The Constitution was adopted in 1888;
went into operation in 1888. When 1t
was adopted the state of the country was
this: Slavery existed in the Southern
States; there was very large extent Of
unoccupied territory, the whole North
Western Territory, which, if 1t was un-
derstood, was destined to be formed
into States, and it was then determined
that no Slavery should exist in this Ter
ritory. I gather now, as matter Of in
ference, from the history of the time
and the history of the debates, that the
prevailing motives with the North, for
agreeing to this recognition Of the ex-
istence of Slavery in Southern States,
and giving representation to those
States founded in part upon their slaves,
rested on the supposition that no acqui-
sition of territory would be made to
form new States on the Southern from
tier of this country, either by cession or
conquest No one looked to any acqui-
sition of new territory on the Southern
or South western frontier. The exclu-
sion Of Slavery from the Northwestern
Territory and the prospective abolition
Of the foreign slave trade were generally,
the former unanimously, agreed to; and
on the basis of these considerations the
South insisted that where Slavery ex-
listed it should not be interfered with,
and that it should have certain ratio Of
representation in Congress. And now,
sir, l am one, who, believing such to be
the understanding on which the Consti-
tuition was framed, mean to abide by it.
1t was and has been also, conceded
point, that Slavery in the States in
which it exists is matter of State regu-
lation exclusively, and that Congress
has not the least power over it or the
right to interfere with it. By this prin-
cinle. too T mean to abide.