{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_70681/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_70681","id":"gutenberg_70681","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/70681","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: History - American","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","Slavery -- United States","United States -- Politics and government -- 1849-1853"],"text":"SLAVERY:\n\n                         LETTERS AND SPEECHES,\n\n                                   BY\n\n                              HORACE MANN,\n\n           THE FIRST SECRETARY OF THE MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF\n                               EDUCATION.\n\n                                BOSTON:\n\n                    PUBLISHED BY B. B. MUSSEY & CO.\n\n                                 1851.\n\n\n\n\n       Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1851, by\n\n                              HORACE MANN,\n\n          In the Clerk\u2019s Office of the District Court of the\n                      District of Massachusetts.\n\n\n                           STEREOTYPED AT THE\n                       BOSTON STEREOTYPE FOUNDRY.\n\n\n\n\n                                   TO\n\n                             THE YOUNG MEN\n\n                                   OF\n\n                             MASSACHUSETTS\n\n                     THIS VOLUME IS AFFECTIONATELY\n\n                               Dedicated\n\n                                   BY\n\n                              THE AUTHOR.\n\n\nThis work comes from one in whose mind present Memories are taking the\nplace of early Hopes. It is specially addressed to those in whose minds\nfuture Memories will soon take the place of present Hopes. Hence a\nfitting occasion presents itself for the statement of a few principles,\nby whose unerring guidance the exulting Hopes of Youth may always be\ntransformed into the happy Memories of Age.\n\nThe Youth of all climes and times have a common attribute. The desire\nof happiness is a universal desire. God fixes this element in the core\nof life. Far back in our moral organization, before human conduct can\ncome in to control or modify, this longing for happiness, this hope of\nfuture welfare, is radicated in the soul; so that it seems to have been\nthe first attribute which was taken for the constitution of our nature,\nand around which the other attributes were gathered, rather to have\nbeen added to the rest as a secondary or incident. The desire of some\nform of happiness being secured, as a motive power, it seems to have\nbeen left very much to the option of each individual to select his own\nobjects of enjoyment, whether noble or ignoble, and to devise his own\nmeans for obtaining them, whether righteous or unrighteous.\n\nThe emulous and aspiring youth of a Free People will always find much\nof their private, and most of their public welfare, indissolubly\nconnected with the institutions and laws of their country. In these,\ntherefore, their interest is both public and personal;--it pertains\nto the citizen as well as to the man. All great moral questions,\nthough touching them but lightly at first, will come closer and closer\nhome, as long as they live;--growing into greater importance for\ntheir posthumous memory than for their living fame, and affecting the\nfortunes of their posterity even more than their own.\n\nThough all Young Men are substantially alike in their desire of well\nbeing, yet, in regard to the guiding principles by which the objects\nof hope are pursued, in order to obtain happiness, three marked\ndistinctions, or classes, exist among them.\n\n1. There are those who adopt with implicit and unquestioning faith the\nviews of their parents, or of the circle, or caste, into which they\nwere thrown by the accident of birth. They never venture to explore or\nwander outside of the ideas and opinions among which they were born\nand bred. For them, an hereditary boundary encloses thought, belief,\nhope. Whether the opinions amid which they live are insular in their\nnarrowness, or continental in their breadth; whether they belong to\nthe earth, came up from the dark regions below, or descended from the\nrealms of purity above, they are taken into the receptive soul, as\nunfledged birds take whatever food is offered them, from friend or foe,\nwith closed eye and opened mouth. Even if practically right, therefore,\nthey are never rationally right, for they have never discerned between\ngood and ill; and all their convictions, whether true or untrue, rest\nupon the foundation of bigotry alone.\n\n2. The second class look eagerly beyond family or caste. They anxiously\ninquire what views, what dogmas, are in the ascendant among men,--what\nparty predominates or outvotes, what avowals or professions will most\nreadily open avenues to wealth, propitiate power, win patronage,\ninsure advancement. Finding where the preponderance of forces lies,\nthey attach themselves to the stronger. No matter whether the tide\nebbs or flows, they drift with the current. If popular views change,\nthey change, \u201clike a wave driven with the wind and tossed;\u201d like a\nchameleon, changing its color with every contact.\n\nSome of this class, more sagacious, though not less false to principle,\nthan the rest, ascend an eminence, whence they can survey the direction\nof forces, mark the future point and period of their union, and then\nthey strike at once for the spot whither those forces are converging\nThey, not less than their fellows, warp eternal principles to suit the\nvice of the hour, only it is an hour somewhat future, instead of the\npresent one.\n\n3. But there is a third class of Young Men who are true to the sacred\ninstincts of virtue, and devoutly reverent of duty. They seek, not for\nthe time-hallowed, but for the truth-hallowed. They have learnt that,\nin the divine classification, there are but two great objects in the\nuniverse,--God and Mankind. These are the only existences recognized in\nthose two supreme laws, which, by divine prerogative, hold all other\nlaws in their embrace. Hence the two resulting and all-comprehending\nduties,--love to God and love to Man. The convictions and sentiments\nwhich belong to the Brotherhood of the one, stand upon the same basis\nof authority as those which belong to the Fatherhood of the other.\nHence all other entities and possibilities,--opulence, power, fame,\ngenius, things present, or things to come,--are, and forever must be,\nsecondary and subordinate to these primary and everlasting laws. No\nnames so lofty, no multitude so large, that they can abolish these\ntruths, or abstract one jot or tittle from their binding force, in\nthis life, or in any life. They are co\u00ebternal with their Author;\nunchangeable as He, and moral life and moral death wait upon their\naward.\n\nWhen the Young Man of this class looks within himself, he finds the\nconstitution of his own moral nature to be such, that annihilation with\ntruth is better than the most favored existence with error. And when he\nlooks without himself, he sees there is a God enthroned above, mightier\nthan every \u201cgod of this world,\u201d and that there is a divine law higher\nthan any laws of fallible men. Hence he knows that Right and Truth\nwill assuredly triumph, and that all who oppose them will be scattered\nas the whirlwind scatters the chaff. The patriarchs sold Joseph into\nEgypt; yet God was with him, and raised him to honor, and at last put\nthe lives of his treacherous brethren into his hands.\n\nWhatever may be the peculiar madness of the hour, in whatever direction\nthe gauds of wealth may beckon, or the prizes of ambition call, let the\nYoung Man remember, _that_ only can be honorable which is just, that\nonly can be safe which is right. Hence, though the perfumed breezes\nof flattery may entice him on one side, and a storm of maledictions\nbeat fiercely against him on the other, let him consecrate himself\nto Justice and Truth, and be inspired with the faith that, though\nthe earth should quake or the heavens fall, an omniscient eye will\nover-watch, and an omniscient arm will protect him.\n\nAmong the wiles of the sorceress that beguile the young to their ruin\nthere is no more seductive, yet fallacious temptation, than the value\nwhich seems to belong to the passing hour, and to the pleasures it may\nbring. How infinitely small a part of existence is the present day,\nor year! How insignificant its point compared with the ages to come!\nWhat are its huzzas, its ostentation, and its pride, when placed in\nthe balance against the eternity of rewards that crown allegiance to\nduty? O, how insane and fatuous to barter the undecaying honors of the\nfuture for the transitory joys of the present! In the future, lies the\nwealth of every man; the present is only an opportunity to make its\ntitle secure. The temporizer must snatch from hour to hour at some new\nexpedient, which, if he fails to seize, he sinks to perdition. The\nvirtuous man binds himself to a principle, and soars securely through\nall worlds.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nNothing stands upon a more adamantine basis of truth than the\nprinciples which decide between Human Freedom and Human Slavery. These\neternal principles happen now, in a peculiar degree, to be implicated\nin the shifting and uncertain current of politics; and political storms\nmay seem for a time to overwhelm them. But the cloud which obscures the\nsun does not annihilate it; and these principles are sure to emerge and\nshine unclouded in their native splendor forever. Every act, whether\nof individuals or of governments, whether committed in past days or\nin our day, which compromises the sacred principles of Human Freedom,\nor postpones its interests to other interests, is set down, in the\ncalendar of fate, for ultimate and universal execration. This is just\nas certain as it is that the great crimes of the race committed in\npast ages,--the persecutions of the early Christians, the tortures of\nthe Inquisition, or the atrocities of the African Slave trade,--are\nnow condemned by the awful verdict of history and the ever-sounding\nreprobation of mankind. In the spread of Christianity, in the advance\nof civilization, in the moral development of the people, a tribunal is\nnow preparing, which will pronounce sentence of condemnation against\nthe abetters of slavery, to be promulgated as from Sinai, and preserved\nin the archives of eternity. The Progress of the Age bears us on, not\nonly to a forward, but to an upward point; and what we now say against\nthe apostates to duty and the traitors of mankind, in past ages,\nhowever much they may have been honored, caressed, and rewarded in\ntheir day, will soon be said of every one amongst ourselves who leads\nor joins the band of conspirators against the Rights of Man.\n\nEvery Young Man, however obscure or powerless he may seem, can do\nsomething for the cause of freedom. Whatever disadvantages the youth\nmay labor under, they have one all-compensating advantage. A longer\nperiod of life is before them, and deeds which can only be accomplished\nthrough years of labor, they can achieve. But our success depends\ninfinitely less upon our strength than upon our motive. When we\nsupply the virtuous will, God supplies the power; so that the result\ncorresponds, not to our weakness, but to his omnipotence. We are thus\nmade able\n\n                          ----\u201cto join\n    Our partial movements with the master wheel\n    Of the great world, _and serve that sacred end,\n    Which He, the unerring Reason, keeps in view_.\u201d\n\nThose Young Men of Massachusetts, then, of the noble lineage of the\nPilgrims, who have been nursed amid the influences of sanctuary\nand school, in whose bosoms is the sacred depository of future and\nboundless hopes, but who are now counselled to abandon their integrity,\nwho are brought into peril of being corrupted by the lures of wealth,\nor fascinated by the dazzling of worldly honors, or swept away by the\npressure of the multitude that do evil, I adjure to stand fast and\nimmovable on those sacred and eternal principles of Human Liberty\nwhich came down to us _through_ the fires of oppression and the agony\nand blood of martyrs, but came _from_ God;--principles that can never\nsuffer the decays of time, which kings nor senates of kings can ever\nabolish, and which, however much the passions of men may seek to taint\nor defile them, are ever beautiful and fair, as the names of all their\ndisciples shall hereafter be. I call upon Young Men to throw themselves\nforward in imagination into middle life, or old age, and there behold\nhow these mighty questions will look in the retrospect of time, when\nthe brilliant robes which now gild the tempter are gone, and only the\nghastly fiend remains; when the passion that prompted the crime is\ndead, and only the remorse survives. Think not of luxury, or wealth,\nor ignoble ease, but only of an heroic conflict, careless of the\npresent strength of the foe. Take no bribe from the hand of power, in\nwhatever disguise of beauty it may come, but spurn it and its author\nalike. Let your future manhood realize the generous aspirations of your\nyouth; and, amid the seductions of the present hour, prize only the\njubilant memories you can lay up for old age. It may grieve you to\nbreak friendships, but truth and duty are your nearest friends. It may\nbe painful to live amongst those who upbraid and condemn you; but be a\ncoward when virtue is in peril, and your own accusing conscience you\nmust live with forever. Study those exemplars of excellence who came\npurified and resplendent out of fiery trials. It is said of Francis\nthe First, that when he read the valorous exploits of Gaston de Foix,\nhe wept tears of emulation. Rejoice, then, though marshalled in the\nfore front of battle when the Rights of Humanity are in danger, and\nyou shall rejoice again and forever in their triumph. Read and ponder\nwhat was so nobly said by one of the heathen of the old world, and be\nashamed, yea, weep for your country and your kind, if the Christianity\nof America has fallen below the paganism of Rome. Seneca says,--\n\n \u201cVirtue covets danger; and whatever may be her aim, she never stops\n to consider how much she may suffer, since her sufferings are a part\n of her glory. Military men glory in their scars. With exultation they\n point us to their blood flowing in an honorable cause. Though they who\n return _unharmed_ from the field of battle may have done as many and\n as noble deeds, yet it is the _wounded_ soldier who receives double\n honors. God provides for those whom he would make most honorable, by\n furnishing them with opportunities for achieving valiant and noble\n deeds. Hence he strews difficulties along their path. It is in the\n storm you see who is worthy to be a pilot; and in battle, who is\n the soldier.... How can I know with what constancy and endurance\n one will bear up against reproach and obloquy and popular odium, if\n he has grown old amidst the applauses of the world, if he has never\n encountered misfortune, and has been followed by the indiscriminating\n favor of men?... Be not affrighted, I beseech you, at the dangers\n which were intended by the immortal gods only as stimulants to\n exertion. The season of calamity is virtue\u2019s opportunity. _They_,\n rather, are to be esteemed wretched, who lie torpid in luxurious\n ease, whom a sluggish calm detains on the great voyage, like vessels\n that lie weltering on a sea without a gale. Whom God approves and\n loves, he exercises, and tries them again and again, and thus inures\n them to hardship; but those whom he designs to enervate, he spares\n and indulges and saves them from impending ills.... The _bravest_ of\n the army are they whom the commander selects for the most perilous\n service. The general details his choicest men to send on secret\n expeditions by night, or to explore an unknown way, or to dislodge\n a garrison from their entrenchments. No man chosen for such an\n enterprise is ever heard to say, \u2018_My commander has wronged and\n dishonored me_,\u2019 but rather, \u2018_He has known well whom to choose._\u2019\n Such, too, is the language of those who are required to suffer what\n would make the timid and the ignoble weep. We stand honored in the\n divine regards when the great experiment, _how much human nature can\n endure for a virtuous cause_, is tried in ourselves.... As teachers\n deal with their scholars, so God deals with good men. He demands most\n of those in whom he has most confidence.\u201d\n\nWEST NEWTON, October, 1851.\n\n\n\n\n                               CONTENTS.\n\n\n                                                                    PAGE\n\n  LETTER ACCEPTING THE NOMINATION FOR THE THIRTIETH CONGRESS,          1\n\n  SPEECH, DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED\n  STATES, JUNE 30, 1848,                                              10\n\n  SKETCH OF THE OPENING ARGUMENT IN THE CASE OF THE UNITED STATES\n  _vs._ DANIEL DRAYTON,                                               84\n\n  LETTER ACCEPTING THE NOMINATION FOR THE THIRTY-FIRST CONGRESS,     119\n\n  SPEECH, DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED\n  STATES, FEB. 23, 1849,                                             121\n\n  SPEECH, DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED\n  STATES, FEB. 15, 1850,                                             180\n\n  TWO LETTERS ON THE EXTENSION OF SLAVERY, AND ON THE RIGHT OF AN\n  ALLEGED FUGITIVE SLAVE TO A TRIAL BY JURY,                    236, 282\n\n  LETTER: THE ORDINANCE OF 1787,                                     238\n\n  LETTER ACCEPTING THE NOMINATION FOR THE THIRTY-SECOND CONGRESS,    340\n\n  SPEECH, DELIVERED AT DEDHAM, NOV. 6, 1850,                         357\n\n  SPEECH, DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED\n  STATES, FEB. 28, 1851,                                             390\n\n  SPEECH, DELIVERED AT LANCASTER, MAY 19, 1851,                      473\n\n  SPEECH, DELIVERED IN BOSTON, APRIL 8, 1851,                        523\n\n  SPEECH, DELIVERED AT WORCESTER, SEPT. 16, 1851,                    536\n\n\n\n\n                                LETTER\n\n ACCEPTING THE NOMINATION FOR THE THIRTIETH CONGRESS, MADE BY THE WHIG\n CONVENTION OF DISTRICT NO. 8, MARCH, 1848.\n\n\n  GENTLEMEN;\n\nYour communication of the 16th inst., being directed to Newton,\n(instead of West Newton, where I reside,) did not reach me until\nthis morning. I thank you cordially for the kind expressions of\npersonal regard with which you have been pleased to accompany it. You\ninform me that at a convention of delegates assembled in Dedham, on\nWednesday, the 15th inst., I was nominated as a candidate to fill the\nvacancy in Congress occasioned by the death of the great and good man\nwhose irreparable loss we, his constituents, with a nation for our\nfellow-mourners, deplore.\n\nAt first thought, the idea of being the immediate successor of John\nQuincy Adams in the councils of the nation might well cause any man\nto shrink back from the inevitable contrast. But it is obvious, on a\nmoment\u2019s reflection, that the difference is so trivial between all the\nmen whom he has left, compared with the disparity between them and\nhim, as to render it of little consequence, in this respect, who shall\nsucceed him; and the people in the Eighth District, in their descent\nfrom Mr. Adams to any successor, must break and bear the shock of the\nfall, as best they can.\n\nI most heartily concur with you in that estimate of the services, and\nveneration for the character, of our late representative, which your\nresolutions so eloquently express. To be fired by his example, to\nimitate his diligence and fidelity in the discharge of every trust, to\nemulate his moral intrepidity, which always preferred to stand alone by\nthe right, rather than to join the retinue and receive the plaudits of\nmillions, as a champion of the wrong,--this would be, in the beautiful\nlanguage of the Roman historian, \u201cto ascend to glory by the path of\nvirtue.\u201d\n\nOne of the resolutions adopted by your convention declares the three\nfollowing things:--\n\n1. That the successor of Mr. Adams, on the floor of Congress, should\nbe a man \u201cwhose principles shall be in consonance with those of his\npredecessor.\u201d\n\n2. That his fidelity to the great principles of human freedom shall be\nunwavering. And,--\n\n3. That his \u201cvoice and vote shall on all occasions be exercised in\nextending and securing liberty to the human race.\u201d\n\nPermit me to re\u00e4ffirm these sentiments with my whole heart. Should the\nresponsibilities of that successorship ever be devolved upon me, I\nshall endeavor so to fulfil them, that these dead words should become\na living soul. I should deem it not only an object of duty, but of the\nhighest ambition, to contend for the noble principles you have here\nexpressed, as Mr. Adams contended for them; though, unhappily, it would\nbe only as a David in Saul\u2019s armor. Bear with me for a moment while I\nenlarge upon these sentiments.\n\n1. \u201c_In consonance with his principles._\u201d--I believe it was the\nsovereign rule of Mr. Adams\u2019s life to act in obedience to his\nconvictions of duty. Truth was his guide. His conscience was\nnon-elastic. He did not strain at a gnat before company, on account\nof its size, and then, privately, swallow a camel. His patriotism was\nco\u00ebxtensive with his country; it could not be crushed and squeezed in\nbetween party lines. Though liable to err,--and what human being is\nnot?--yet his principles were believed by him to be in accordance\nwith the great moral laws of the universe. They were thought out from\nduty and religion, and not carved out of expediency. When invested\nwith patronage, he never dismissed a man from office because he was a\npolitical opponent, and never appointed one to office merely because\nhe was a political friend. Hence he drew from Mr. Holmes, of South\nCarolina, this noble eulogium,--a eulogium, considering the part of\nthe country from which it came, as honorable to its author as to\nits object,--that \u201che crushed no heart beneath the rude grasp of\nproscription; he left no heritage of widows\u2019 cries or orphans\u2019 tears.\u201d\nCould all the honors which Mr. Adams ever won from offices held under\nthe first five Presidents of the United States, and from a public\nservice, which, commencing more than fifty years ago, continued to the\nday of his death, be concentrated in one effulgent blaze, they would be\nless far-shining and inextinguishable than the honor of sacrificing his\nelection for a second presidential term, because he would not, in order\nto obtain it, prostitute the patronage and power which the constitution\nhad placed in his hands. I regard this as the sublimest spectacle in\nhis long and varied career. He stood within reach of an object of\nambition doubtless dearer to him than life. He could have laid his\nhands upon it. The \u201cstill, small voice\u201d said, No! Without a murmur, he\nsaw it taken and borne away in triumph by another. Compared with this,\nthe block of many a martyr has been an easy resting-place.\n\n2. \u201c_Unwavering fidelity to the great principles of human\nfreedom._\u201d--The Declaration of American Independence, in 1776, was\nthe first complete assertion of human rights, on an extensive scale,\never made by mankind. Less than three quarters of a century have\nelapsed, and already the greatest portion of the civilized world\nhas felt the influence of that Declaration. France, for years, has\nhad a constitutional monarchy; perhaps, to-day, her government is\nrepublican. Holland and Belgium are comparatively free. Almost all\nthe states of the Germanic Confederation have a written constitution,\nand a legislature with a popular branch. Prussia has lately commenced\na representative system. The iron rule of Austria is relaxed under\nthe fervent heat which liberty reflects from surrounding nations.\nNaples and Sicily have just burst the bonds of tyranny. In Rome and\nthe States of the Church, where, under the influence of religious and\npolitical despotism, the heart of Freedom was supposed to be petrified\ninto insoluble hardness, that heart is now beginning to pulsate with a\nnew life, and to throb with sympathy for humanity. Great Britain and\nDenmark have emancipated their slaves in the West Indies. Measures\nare now in progress to ameliorate the condition of Russian serfs.\nEven half-barbarous, Mahometan Tunis has yielded to the tide of free\nprinciples. To what bar of judgment will our own posterity bring us,\nwhat doom of infamy will history pronounce upon us, if the United\nStates shall hereafter be found the only portion of Christendom where\nthe principles of our own Declaration of Independence are violated in\nthe persons of millions of our people?\n\n3. \u201c_The exercise, on all occasions, of voice and vote, in extending\nand securing liberty to the human race._\u201d--There is a crisis in our\naffairs. A territory, in extent far exceeding that of the thirteen\noriginal states, when they repelled the power of Great Britain,\nhas lately been added, or is, doubtless, about to be added, to our\nnational domain. The expanse of this territory is so vast, that it\nmay be divided into a dozen sections, and these sections may be\nerected into separate states, each one of which shall be so large that\nMassachusetts would seem but an inconsiderable court-yard, if placed\nin front of it. Parts of this territory are fertile and salubrious. It\nis capable of supporting millions and millions of human beings, of\nthe same generation. The numbers of the successive generations, which\nin the providence of God are to inhabit it, will be as the leaves of\nthe forest, or the sands on the sea-shore. Each one of these is to\nbe a living soul, with its joys and sorrows, its hopes and fears,\nits susceptibilities of exaltation or of abasement. Each one will be\ncapable of being formed into the image of God, or of being deformed\ninto the image of all that is anti-godlike.\n\nThese countless millions are to be our kindred; many of them, perhaps,\nour own descendants; at any rate, our brethren of the human family;\nfor has not God \u201cmade of one blood all nations of men to dwell upon\nall the face of the earth\u201d? In rights, in character, in happiness; in\nfreedom or in vassalage; in the glorious immunities and prerogatives\nof knowledge, or in the debasement and superstitions of ignorance;\nin their upward-looking aspiration and love of moral excellence,\nor in their downward-looking, prone-rushing, and brutish appetites\nand passions, what shall these millions of our fellow-creatures be?\nI put it as a practical question, What shall these millions of our\nfellow-creatures be?--for it is more than probable that this very\ngeneration,--nay, that the actors in public affairs, before the sands\nof the present year shall have run out,--will prescribe and fore\u00f6rdain\ntheir doom. That doom will be what our present conduct predestines.\n\nIf we enact laws and establish institutions, under whose benign\ninfluences that vast tract of territory shall at length teem with\nmyriads of human beings, each one a free-born man; each one enjoying\nthe inalienable right of \u201clife, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;\u201d\neach one free for the cultivation of his capacities, and free in the\nchoice and in the rewards of his labor;--if we do this, although\nthe grand results may not manifest themselves for a thousand years,\nyet when the fulness of time shall come, the equity and the honor\nof framing these laws and institutions will belong to us, as much\nas though the glorious consummation could be realized to-morrow. On\nthe other hand, if we so shape the mould in which their fortunes are\nto be cast, that, for them or for any portion of them, there shall\nbe servitude instead of liberty, ignorance instead of education,\ndebasement instead of dignity, the indulgence of bestial appetites\ninstead of the sanctities and securities of domestic life,--then, until\nthe mountains shall crumble away by age, until the arches of the skies\nshall fall in rottenness, these mountains and these arches will never\ncease to echo back the execrations upon our memory of all the great\nand good men of the world. And this retribution, I believe, will come\nsuddenly, as well as last forever.\n\nIn one of the South-western States a vast subterranean cave has been\ndiscovered, deep down in whose chambers there is a pool of water, on\nwhich no beam of sunlight ever shines. A sightless fish is said to\ninhabit this rayless pool. In this animal, indeed, the rudiments of a\nvisual organ are supposed to be dimly discernible; but of an orb to\nrefract the rays of light, or of a retina to receive them, there is\nno trace. Naturalists suppose that the progenitors of these animals,\nin ages long gone by, possessed the power of vision; but that, being\nburied in these depths by some convulsion of nature, long disuse at\nfirst impaired, at length extinguished, and has at last obliterated\nthe visual organ itself. The animal has sunk in the scale of being,\nuntil its senses are accommodated to the blackness of darkness in which\nit dwells. Were this account wholly fabulous, it has the strongest\nverisimilitude, and doubtless describes what would actually occur under\nthe circumstances supposed.\n\nThus will it be with faculties above the surface of the earth, as\nwell as below it. Thus will it be with human beings, as well as with\nthe lower orders of creation. Thus will it be with our own brethren\nor children, should we shut up from them the book of knowledge, or\nseal their senses so that they could not read it. Thus will it be\nwith all our God-given faculties, just so far as they are debarred\nfrom legitimate exercise upon their appropriate objects. The love of\nknowledge will die out, when it ceases to be stimulated by the means\nof knowledge. Self-respect will die out, under the ever-present sense\nof inferiority. The sentiments of truth and duty will die out, when\ncunning and falsehood can obtain more gratifications than frankness\nand honesty. The noblest impulses of the human soul, the most sacred\naffections of the human heart, will die out, when every sphere is\nclosed against their exercise. When such a dreadful work is doing,\nor threatens to be done, can any one stand listlessly by, see it\nperpetrated, and then expect to excuse himself, under the false,\nimpious pretext of Cain, \u201cAm I my brother\u2019s keeper?\u201d\n\nFully, then, do I agree with you and the delegates of the convention\nyou represent, in saying that the successor of Mr. Adams should be\none \u201cwhose voice and vote shall, on all occasions, be exercised in\nextending and securing liberty to the human race.\u201d Of course I do not\nunderstand you to imply any violation of the constitution of the United\nStates, which every representative swears to support.\n\nPermit me to say a word personal to myself. For eleven years, I have\nbeen estranged from all political excitements. During this whole\nperiod, I have attended no political meeting of any kind whatever. I\nhave contented myself with the right of private judgment and the right\nof voting, though it has usually so happened that my official duties\nhave demanded my absence from home at the time of the fall elections.\nI have deemed this abstinence from _actively_ mingling in political\ncontests both a matter of duty towards opposing political parties, and\na proper means of subserving the best interests of the cause in which I\nhad embarked. I hoped too, by so doing, to assist in rearing men even\nbetter than those now belonging to any party.\n\nThe nature of my duties also, and all my intercourse and associations,\nhave attracted me towards whatever is worthy and beneficent in all\nparties, rather than towards what is peculiar to any one. Not believing\nin political pledges, I should have had the honor to decline giving any\nto you, had you not had the first and greater honor of asking none from\nme. After what I have said above in favor of liberty for all mankind,\nit would be a strange contradiction did I consent to be myself a slave\nof party. The hands which you raised in behalf of yourselves and\nyour constituents, when you voted for the noble sentiments contained\nin the resolution I have quoted, could never degrade themselves by\nforging a fetter for the free mind of another, or fastening one upon\nit; and the hand with which I have penned my hearty response to those\nsentiments can never stretch itself out to take a fetter on. Should\nyour nomination, therefore, be accepted and be successful, it must be\nwith the explicit understanding between us that I shall always be open\nto receive the advice of my constituents, shall always welcome their\ncounsel, always be most grateful for their suggestions, but that,\nin the last resort, my own sense of duty must be the only arbiter.\nShould differences arise, the law opens an honorable escape for both\nparties,--declination on my part, substitution on yours.\n\nI must add, in closing, that so far as personal preferences are\nconcerned, I infinitely prefer remaining in my present position, with\nall its labor and its thanklessness, to any office in the gift of\nthe people. I had hoped and intended, either in a public or private\ncapacity, to spend my life in advancing the great cause of the people\u2019s\neducation. Two considerations alone could tempt me to abandon this\npurpose. The first is important. The enactment of laws which shall\ncover waste territory, to be applied to the myriads of human beings\nwho are hereafter to occupy that territory, is a work which seems to\nprecede and outrank even education itself. Whether a wide expanse of\ncountry shall be filled with beings to whom education is permitted,\nor with those to whom it is denied,--with those whom humanity and the\nlaw make it a duty to teach, or with those whom inhumanity and the law\nmake it a _legal_ duty not to teach, seems preliminary to all questions\nrespecting the best systems and methods for rendering education\neffective.\n\nThe other consideration is comparatively unimportant; though, for\nthe time being, it has embarrassed me greatly. I now learn that\nexpectations were excited at your convention, that if a nomination were\ntendered me, it would not be declined. Had I anticipated the favorable\nregards of the convention, or foreseen that such expectations would be\nraised, I should not have hearkened to the proposition for a moment;\nand I may be permitted to add, that when I saw my name announced in\nthe papers, my first act was to prepare a letter of declination. It\nwas only when I went to deliver the letter that I learnt what had been\ndone, and that, in the opinion of persons whose judgment I am bound to\nrespect, I had been so far committed by my too partial friends, as that\nno option remained.\n\nYielding to these considerations, I submit myself to the decision of my\nfellow-citizens.\n\n                                With sentiments of high personal regard,\n                                I am, gentlemen,\n                                Your friend and servant,\n                                HORACE MANN.\n\n Hon. THOMAS FRENCH, President; SAMUEL C. MANN, JOHN K. CORBETT, EDWARD\n CREHORE, Esqs., Secretaries.\n\n WEST NEWTON, March 21, 1848.\n\n\n\n\n                                SPEECH\n\n DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES, JUNE\n 30, 1848, ON THE RIGHT OF CONGRESS TO LEGISLATE FOR THE TERRITORIES OF\n THE UNITED STATES, AND ITS DUTY TO EXCLUDE SLAVERY THEREFROM.\n\n\nMR. CHAIRMAN;\n\nI have listened with interest, both yesterday and to-day, to speeches\non what is called the \u201cPresidential Question.\u201d I propose to discuss a\nquestion of far greater magnitude,--the question of the age,--one whose\nconsequences will not end with the ensuing four years, but will reach\nforward to the setting of the sun of time.\n\nSir, our position is this: The United States finds itself the owner of\na vast region of country at the west, now almost vacant of inhabitants.\nParts of this region are salubrious and fertile. We have reason to\nsuppose, that, in addition to the treasures of wealth which industry\nmay gather from its surface, there are mineral treasures beneath\nit,--riches garnered up of old in subterranean chambers, and only\nawaiting the application of intelligence and skill to be converted\ninto the means of human improvement and happiness. These regions, it\nis true, lie remote from our place of residence. Their shores are\nwashed by another sea, and it is no figure of speech to say that\nanother sky bends over them. So remote are they, that their hours\nare not as our hours, nor their day as our day; and yet, such are\nthe wonderful improvements in art, in modern times, as to make it no\nrash anticipation, that, before this century shall have closed, the\ninhabitants on the Atlantic shores will be able to visit their brethren\non the Pacific in ten days; and that intelligence will be transmitted\nand returned between the eastern and the western oceans in ten minutes.\nThat country, therefore, will be rapidly filled, and we shall be\nbrought into intimate relations with it, and, notwithstanding its\ndistance, into proximity to it.\n\nNow, in the providence of God, it has fallen to our lot to legislate\nfor this unoccupied, or but partially occupied, expanse. Its great\nfuture hangs upon our decision. Not only degrees of latitude and\nlongitude, but vast tracts of time,--ages and centuries,--seem at\nour disposal. As are the institutions which we form and establish\nthere, so will be the men whom these institutions, in their turn,\nwill form. Nature works by fixed laws; but we can bring this or that\ncombination of circumstances under the operation of her laws, and thus\ndetermine results. Here springs up our responsibility. One class of\ninstitutions will gather there one class of men, who will develop one\nset of characteristics; another class of institutions will gather there\nanother class of men, who will develop other characteristics. Hence\ntheir futurity is to depend upon our present action. Hence the acts we\nare to perform seem to partake of the nature of creation, rather than\nof legislation. Standing upon the elevation which we now occupy, and\nlooking over into that empty world, \u201cyet void,\u201d if not \u201cwithout form,\u201d\nbut soon to be filled with multitudinous life, and reflecting upon our\npower to give form and character to that life, and almost to fore\u00f6rdain\nwhat it shall be, I feel as though it would be no irreverence to\ncompare our condition to that of the Creator before he fashioned the\n\u201clord\u201d of this lower world; for we, like Him, can ingraft one set of\nattributes, or another set of attributes, upon a whole race of men. In\napproaching this subject, therefore, I feel a sense of responsibility\ncorresponding to the infinite,--I speak literally,--the _infinite_\ninterests which it embraces.\n\nAs far as the time allowed me will permit, I propose to discuss two\nquestions. The first is, \u201c_Whether Congress can lawfully legislate on\nthe subject of slavery in the territories_.\u201d\n\nOn this question a new and most extraordinary doctrine has lately been\nbroached. A new reading of the constitution has been discovered. It is\naverred that the 3d section of the 4th article, giving Congress power\n\u201cto dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations respecting\nthe territory or other property belonging to the United States,\u201d\nonly gives power to legislate for the land _as land_. It is admitted\nthat Congress may legislate for the land _as land_,--geologically or\nbotanically considered,--perhaps for the beasts that roam upon its\nsurface, or the fishes that swim in its waters; but it is denied that\nCongress possesses any power to determine the laws and the institutions\nof those who shall inhabit that \u201cland.\u201d\n\nBut compare this with any other object of purchase or possession. When\nTexas was admitted into the Union, it transferred its \u201cnavy\u201d to the\nUnited States; in other words, the United States bought, and of course\nowned, the navy of Texas. What power had Congress over this navy, after\nthe purchase? According to the new doctrine, it could pass laws for the\nhull, the masts, and the sails of the Texan ships, but would have no\npower to navigate them by officers and men. It might govern the ships\nas so much wood, iron, and cordage, but would have no authority over\ncommanders or crews.\n\nBut we are challenged to show any clause in the constitution which\nconfers an _express_ power to legislate over the territories we\npossess. I challenge our opponents to show any clause which confers\nexpress power to acquire those territories themselves. If, then, the\npower to acquire exists, it exists by implication and inference; and\nif the power _to acquire_ be an implied one, the power _to govern what\nis acquired_ must be implied also. For, for what purpose does any man\nacquire property but to govern and control it? What does a buyer pay\nfor, if it be not the right to \u201cdispose of\u201d? Such is the doctrine of\nthe Supreme Court of the United States: \u201cThe right to govern,\u201d says\nChief Justice Marshall, \u201cmay be the inevitable consequence of the right\nto acquire.\u201d _Amer. Ins. Co._ vs. _Canter_, _1 Peters_, 542. See also\n_McCullough_ vs. _Maryland_, _4 Wheat._, 422. _The Cherokee Nation_ vs.\n_Georgia_, _5 Peters_, 44. _United States_ vs. _Gratiot_, _14 Peters_,\n537.\n\nBut I refer to the express words of the constitution, as ample and\neffective in conferring all the power that is claimed. \u201cCongress\nmay dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations,\u201d &c. If\nCongress may \u201cdispose of\u201d this land, then it may sell it. Inseparable\nfrom the right to sell is the right to define the terms of sale. The\nseller may affix such conditions and limitations as he pleases to the\nthing sold. If this be not so, then the buyer may dictate his terms to\nthe seller. Answer these simple questions: Supposing the United States\nto own land in fee simple, then, is the government under guardianship,\nor disabled by minority? Is it _non compos mentis_? If no such\ndisability applies to it, then it may sell. It may sell the fee simple,\nor it may carve out a lesser estate, and sell that. It may incorporate\nsuch terms and conditions as it pleases into its deed or patent of\nsale. It may make an outright quitclaim, or it may reserve the minerals\nfor its own use, or the navigable streams for public highways, as\nit did in regard to the territory north-west of the river Ohio. It\nmay insert the conditions and limitations in each deed or patent;\nor, where the grantees are numerous, it may make general \u201crules and\nregulations,\u201d which are understood to be a part of each contract, and\nare therefore binding upon each purchaser. No man is compelled to buy;\nbut if any one does buy, he buys subject to the \u201crules and regulations\u201d\nexpressed in the grant; and neither he, nor his grantees, nor his or\ntheir heirs after them, can complain. I want, therefore, no better\nfoundation for legislating over the territories than the fact of\nownership in the United States. Grant this, and all is granted. If I\nown a farm, or a shop, I may, as owner, prescribe the conditions of its\ntransfer to another. If he does not like my conditions, then let him\nabandon the negotiation; if he accedes to the conditions, then let him\nabide by them, and hold his peace.\n\nSir, in the state to which I belong, we hold temperance to be a great\nblessing, as well as a great virtue; and intemperance to be a great\ncurse, as well as a great sin. I know of incorporated companies\nthere, who have purchased large tracts of land for manufacturing\npurposes. They well know how essential is the sobriety of workmen to\nthe profitableness of their work; they know, too, how wasteful and\ndestructive is inebriety. In disposing of their land, therefore, to the\nmen whom they would gather about them and employ, they incorporate the\nprovision, as a fundamental article in the deed of grant, that ardent\nspirits shall never be sold upon the premises; and thus they shut up,\nat once, one of the most densely-thronged gateways of hell. Have they\nnot a right to do so, from the mere fact of ownership? Would any judge\nor lawyer doubt the validity of such a condition; or would any sensible\nman ever doubt its wisdom or humanity? Pecuniarily and morally, this\ncomes under the head of \u201cneedful rules and regulations.\u201d If tipplers\ndo not like them, let them stagger away, and seek their residence\nelsewhere.\n\nBut the United States is not merely a land owner; it is a sovereignty.\nAs such, it exercises all constitutional jurisdiction over all its\nterritories. Whence, but from this right of sovereignty, does the\ngovernment obtain its power of saying that no man shall purchase land\nof the natives, or aborigines; and that, if you wish to buy land in\nthe territories, you shall come to the government for it? Is there\nany express power in the constitution authorizing Congress to say to\nall the citizens of the United States, \u201cIf you wish to buy ungranted\nland in the territories, you must come to us, for no one else can\nsell, or shall sell\u201d? This right, sustained by all our legislation and\nadjudications, covers the whole ground. _Lessee of Johnson et al._ vs.\n_McIntosh_, _8 Wheaton_, 543; _5 Cond. Rep._ 515.\n\nBut, leaving the constitution, it is denied that there are precedents.\nThe honorable gentlemen from Virginia [Mr. Bayly] has not only\ncontested the power of Congress to legislate on the subject of slavery\nin the territories, but he has denied the existence of precedents to\nsustain this power. Sir, it would have been an assertion far less bold,\nto deny the existence of precedents for the election of a President of\nthe United States; for the instances of the latter have been far less\nfrequent than of the former. Congress has legislated on the subject\nof slavery in the territories all the way up from the adoption of\nthe constitution to the present time; and this legislation has been\nsustained by the judiciary of both the general and state governments,\nand carried into execution by the executive power of both. See _Menard_\nvs. _Aspasia_, _5 Peters_, 505; _Phebe et al._ vs. _Jay_, _Breese\u2019s\nRep._ 210; _Hogg_ vs. _The Zanesville Canal Co._, _5 Ohio Rep._ 410;\n_Martin\u2019s Louisiana Rep. N. S._ 699; _Spooner_ vs. _McConnell_, _1\nMcLean\u2019s Rep._ 341; _Harvey_ vs. _Deeker_, _Walker\u2019s Mississippi Rep._\n36; _Rachael_ vs. _Walker_, _4 Missouri Rep._ 350.\n\nSo far as the uniform practice of sixty years can settle a doubtful,\nor confirm an admitted right, this power of legislating over the\nterritories has been taken from the region of doubt, and established\nupon the basis of acknowledged authority. In legislating for all that\nis now Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa, Missouri,\nArkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Florida, we have legislated on\nthe subject of slavery in the territories. Sixty years of legislation\non one side, and not a denial of the right on the other.\n\nBut the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bayly] says, that the action\nof Congress in regard to the territories has been rather that of\nconstitution-making than of law-making. Suppose this to be true;\ndoes not the greater include the less? If Congress could make a\nconstitution for all the territories,--an organic, fundamental law,--a\nlaw of laws,--could it not, had it so pleased, make the law itself? A\nconstitution prescribes to the legislature what it shall do, and what\nit shall not do; it commands, prohibits, and binds men by oaths to\nsupport itself. It says, \u201cHitherto SHALT thou come, and no farther.\u201d\nAnd if Congress can do this, can it not make the local law itself? Can\naught be more preposterous? As if we could _command_ others to do what\nwe have no right to do ourselves, and prohibit others from doing what\nlies beyond our own jurisdiction! Surely, to decree on what subjects a\ncommunity shall legislate, and on what they shall not legislate, is the\nexercise of the highest power.\n\nBut Congress has not stopped with the exercise of the\nconstitution-making power. In various forms, and at all times, it has\nlegislated for the territories, in the strictest sense of the word\n_legislation_. It has legislated again and again, and ten times again,\non this very subject of slavery. See the act of 1794, prohibiting the\nslave trade from \u201cany port _or place_\u201d in the United States. Could any\ncitizen of the United States, under this act, have gone into one of\nour territories and there have fitted out vessels for the slave trade?\nSurely he could, if Congress had no right to legislate over territories\nonly as so much land and water.\n\nBy statute 1798, chapter 28, \u00a7 7, slaves were forbidden to be brought\ninto the Mississippi Territory from without the United States, and all\nslaves so brought in _were made free_.\n\nSo the act of 1800, chapter 51, in further prohibition of the slave\ntrade, applied to all citizens of the United States, whether living in\nterritories or in organized states. Did not this legislation cover the\nterritories?\n\nBy statute 1804, chapter 38, \u00a7 10, three classes of slaves were\nforbidden to be introduced into the Orleans Territory.\n\nStatute 1807, chapter 22, prohibiting the importation of slaves after\nJanuary 1, 1808, prohibited their importation into the territories in\nexpress terms.\n\nStatute 1818, chapter 91, statute 1819, chapter 101, and statute\n1820, chapter 113, prohibiting the slave trade, and making it piracy,\nexpressly included all the territories of the United States.\n\nStatute 1819, chapter 21, authorized the President to provide for the\nsafe-keeping of slaves imported from Africa, and for their removal\nto their home in that land. Under this law, the President might have\nestablished a depot for slaves within the limits of our territories, on\nthe gulf, or on the Mississippi.\n\nBy statute 1820, chapter 22, \u00a7 8, Congress established what has been\ncalled the Missouri compromise line, thereby expressly legislating on\nthe subject of slavery. So of Texas. See _Jo. Res. March 1, 1851_.\n\nBy statute 1819, chapter 93, statute 1821, chapter 39, \u00a7 2, and statute\n1822, chapter 13, \u00a7 9, Congress legislated on the subject of slavery in\nthe Territory of Florida.\n\nDoes it not seem almost incredible that a defender and champion of\nslavery should deny the power of Congress to legislate on the subject\nof slavery in the territories? If Congress has no such power, by\nwhat right can a master recapture a fugitive slave escaping into a\nterritory? The constitution says, \u201cNo person held to service, or\nlabor, in one _state_, escaping into another,\u201d--that is, another\n_state_,--\u201cshall be discharged from such service, or labor,\u201d &c. The\nact of 1793, chapter 7, \u00a7 3, provides that when a person held to labor,\n&c., \u201cshall escape into any other of the said states, _or territory_,\u201d\nhe may be taken. By what other law than this can a runaway slave be\nretaken _in a territory_? If Congress has no power to legislate on the\nsubject of slavery in any territory, then, surely, it cannot legislate\nfor the capture of a fugitive slave in a territory. The argument cuts\nboth ways. The knife wounds him who would use it to wound his fellow.\n\nFurther than this. If slavery is claimed to be one of the common\nsubjects of legislation, then any legislation by Congress for the\nterritories, on any of the common subjects of legislation, is a\nprecedent, going to prove its right to legislate on slavery itself. If\nCongress may legislate on one subject belonging to a class, then it\nmay legislate on any other subject belonging to the same class. Now,\nCongress has legislated for the territories on almost the whole circle\nof subjects belonging to common legislation. It has legislated on the\nelective franchise, on the pecuniary qualifications and residence of\ncandidates for office, on the militia, on oaths, on the _per diem_\nand mileage of members, &c., &c. By statute 1811, chapter 21, \u00a7 3,\nauthorizing the Territory of Orleans to form a constitution, it was\nprovided that all legislative proceedings and judicial records should\nbe kept and promulgated in the English language. Cannot Congress make\nprovision for the rights of the people, as well as for the language in\nwhich the laws and records defining those rights shall be expressed?\nAny language is sweet to the ears of man which gives him the right of\ntrial by jury, of habeas corpus, of religious freedom, and of life,\nlimb, and liberty; but accursed is that language, and fit only for\nthe realms below, which deprives an immortal being of the rights of\nintelligence and of freedom; of the right to himself, and the dearer\nrights of family.\n\nBut all this is by no means the strongest part of the evidence with\nwhich our statutes and judicial decisions abound, showing the power of\nCongress to legislate over territories. From the beginning, Congress\nhas not only legislated over the territories, but it has appointed and\ncontrolled the agents of legislation.\n\nThe general structure of the legislature in several of the earlier\nterritorial governments was this: It consisted of a governor and of two\nhouses,--an upper and a lower. Without an exception, where a governor\nhas been appointed, Congress has always reserved his appointment to\nitself, or to the President. The governor so appointed has always had\na veto power over the two houses; and Congress has always reserved to\nitself, or to the President, a veto power, not only over him, but over\nhim and both the houses besides. Congress has often interfered also\nwith the appointment of the upper house, leaving only the lower house\nto be chosen exclusively by the people of the territory; and it has\ndetermined even for the lower house the qualifications both of electors\nand of elected. Further still: the power of removing the governor, at\npleasure, has always been reserved to Congress, or to the President.\n\nLook at this: Congress determines for the territory the qualifications\nof electors and elected,--at least in the first instance. No law of\nthe territorial legislature is valid until approved by the governor.\nThough approved by the governor, it may be annulled by Congress, or\nby the President; and the governor is appointed, and may be removed at\npleasure, by Congress or by the President.\n\nTo be more specific, I give the following outline of some of the\nterritorial governments:--\n\n_Ohio Territory, statute 1789, chapter 8._--A governor for four years,\nnominated by the President, approved by the Senate, with power to\nappoint all subordinate civil and military officers.\n\nA secretary for four years, appointed in the same way.\n\nThree judges, to hold office during good behavior. Governor and judges\nthe sole legislature, until the district shall contain five thousand\nfree male inhabitants. Then,--\n\nA House of Assembly, chosen by qualified electors, for two years.\n\nA legislative council of five, to hold office for five years. The House\nof Assembly to choose ten men, five of whom are to be selected by the\nPresident and approved by the Senate. These five to be the \u201cLegislative\nCouncil.\u201d\n\nA governor, as before, with an unconditional veto, and a right to\nconvene, prorogue, and dissolve the Assembly.\n\nPower given to the President to revoke the commissions of governor and\nsecretary.\n\n_Indiana Territory, statute 1800, chapter 41._--Similar to that of\nOhio. At first, the lower house to consist of not more than nine, nor\nless than seven.\n\n_Mississippi Territory, statute 1800, chapter 50._--Similar to that of\nIndiana.\n\n_Michigan Territory, statute 1805, chapter 5._--Similar to that of\nIndiana.\n\n_Illinois Territory, statute 1809, chapter 13._--Similar to that of\nIndiana.\n\n_Alabama Territory, statute 1817, chapter 59._--Similar to that of\nIndiana.\n\n_Wisconsin Territory, statute 1836, chapter 54._--Governor for three\nyears, appointed as above, and removable by the President, with power\nto appoint officers and grant pardons. Unconditional veto.\n\nSecretary for four years, removable by the President. In the absence,\nor during the inability, of the governor, to perform his duties.\n\nLegislative Assembly to consist of a Council and a House of\nRepresentatives, to be chosen for two years. Congress to have an\nunconditional veto, to be exercised on laws approved by the governor.\n\n_Louisiana Territory, statute 1803, chapter 1._--Sole dictatorial power\ngiven to the President of the United States; and the army and navy\nof the United States placed at his command to govern the territorial\ninhabitants.--(This was under Mr. Jefferson, a strict constructionist.)\n\n_Territory of Orleans, statute 1804, chapter 38._--Governor nominated\nby the President, approved by the Senate, tenure of office three years.\nRemovable by the President. Secretary for four years, to be governor in\ncase, &c.\n\nLegislative Council of thirteen, to be annually appointed by the\nPresident.\n\nGovernor and Council, of course, a reciprocal negative on each other.\nCongress an unconditional veto on both.\n\n_District of Louisiana, statute 1804, chapter 38._--To be governed by\nthe governor and judges of the Territory of Indiana.\n\nCongress an unconditional veto on all their laws.\n\n_Missouri Territory, statute 1812, chapter 95._--A governor,\nappointable and removable as above.\n\nSecretary, the same.\n\nA Legislative Council of nine. Eighteen persons to be nominated by\nthe House of Representatives for the territory; nine of these to\nbe selected and appointed by the President and Senate. A House of\nRepresentatives, to be chosen by the people.\n\n_Arkansas Territory, statute 1819, chapter 49._--A governor and\nsecretary, appointable and removable as above.\n\nAll legislative power vested in the governor and in the judges of the\nsuperior court.\n\nWhen a majority of the _freeholders_ should elect, then they might\nadopt the form of government of Missouri.\n\n_East and West Florida, statute 1819, chapter 93.--Statute 1821,\nchapter 29.--Statute 1822, chapter 13._ From March 3, 1819, to March\n30, 1822, the government vested solely in the President of the United\nStates, and to be exercised by such officers as he should appoint.\n\nAfter March 30, 1822, a governor and secretary, appointable and\nremovable as above.\n\nAll legislative power vested in the governor, and in thirteen persons,\ncalled a legislative council, to be appointed annually by the President.\n\nYet, sir, notwithstanding all this legislation of Congress for the\nterritories, on the subject of slavery itself; notwithstanding\nits legislation on a great class of subjects of which slavery is\nacknowledged to be one; notwithstanding its appointment, in some\ncases, of the legislative power of the territory,--making its own\nagent, the governor, removable at pleasure,--giving him a veto, in\nthe first place, and reserving to itself a veto when he has approved;\nnotwithstanding the exercise, in other cases, of full, absolute\nsovereignty over the inhabitants of the territories, and all their\ninterests; and, notwithstanding such has been the practice of the\ngovernment for sixty years, under Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson,\nand others, it is now denied that Congress has any right to legislate\non the subject of slavery in the territories. Sir, with a class of\npoliticians in this country, it has come to this, that slavery is the\nonly sacred thing in existence. It is self-existent, like a god, and\nhuman power cannot prevent it. From year to year, it goes on conquering\nand to conquer, and human power cannot dethrone it.\n\nSir, I will present another argument on this subject, and I do not see\nhow any jurist or statesman can invalidate it.\n\nGovernment is one, but its functions are several. They are legislative,\njudicial, executive. These functions are co\u00f6rdinate; each supposes the\nother two. There must be a legislature to enact laws; there must be a\njudiciary to expound the laws enacted, and point out the individuals\nagainst whom they are to be enforced; there must be an executive arm\nto enforce the decisions of the courts. In every theory of government,\nwhere one of these exist, the others exist. Under our constitution they\nare divided into three parts, and apportioned among three co\u00f6rdinate\nbodies. Whoever denies one of these must deny them all.\n\nIf the government of the United States, therefore, has no right to\n_legislate_ for the territories, it has no right to _adjudicate_ for\nthe territories; if it has no right to _adjudicate_, then it has no\nright to _enforce_ the decisions of the judicial tribunals. These\nrights must stand or fall together. He who takes from this government\nthe law-making power, in regard to territories, strikes also the\nbalances of justice from the hands of the judge, and the mace of\nauthority from those of the executive. There is no escape from this\nconclusion. The constitution gives no more authority to adjudge suits\nin the territories, or to execute the decisions of the territorial\ncourts, than it does to legislate. If Congress has no power over\nterritory, only _as land_, then what does this land want of judges\nand marshals? Is it not obvious, then, that this new reading of the\nconstitution sets aside the whole legislative, judicial, and executive\nadministration of this government over territories, since the adoption\nof the constitution? It makes the whole of it invalid. The Presidents,\nall members of Congress, all judges upon the bench, have been in a\ndream for the last sixty years, and are now waked up and recalled\nto their senses by the charm of a newly-discovered reading of the\nconstitution.\n\nHitherto, sir, I have not directed my remarks to the actual legislation\nby Congress on the subject of slavery in the North-western Territory,\nso called. That territory was consecrated to freedom by the ordinance\nof 1787. It has been said that the _Confederation_ had no power to\npass such an ordinance. But whether this be so or not, is immaterial,\nfor _Congress_ has ratified the ordinance again and again. The first\nCongress at its first session passed an act whose preamble is as\nfollows: \u201cWhereas, in order that the ordinance of the United States, in\nCongress assembled, for the government of the territory north-west of\nthe river Ohio, may continue to have full effect,\u201d &c. It then proceeds\nto modify some parts of the ordinance, and to adopt all the rest.[1]\n\nIn the second section of the act of 1800, chapter 41, establishing the\nIndiana Territory, it is expressly provided that its government shall\nbe \u201cin all respects similar to that provided by the ordinance of 1787.\u201d\n\nIn the act of 1802, chapter 40, section 5, authorizing Ohio to form\na constitution and state government, this ordinance of 1787 is three\ntimes referred to as a valid and existing engagement, and it has always\nbeen held to be so by the courts of Ohio.\n\nSo in the act of 1816, chapter 57, section 4, authorizing the erection\nof Indiana into a state, the ordinance is again recognized, and is made\na part of the fundamental law of the state.\n\nSo in the act of 1818, chapter 67, section 4, authorizing Illinois to\nbecome a state.\n\nSo in the act of 1805, chapter 5, section 2, establishing the Territory\nof Michigan.\n\nSo of Wisconsin. See act of 1847, chapter 53, in connection with the\nconstitution of Wisconsin.\n\nBut all this is tedious and superfluous. I have gone into this detail,\nbecause I understand the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. BAYLY] to have\ndenied this adoption and these recognitions of the ordinance. I hazard\nnothing in saying that the ordinance of 1787 has been expressly\nreferred to as valid, or expressly or impliedly re\u00ebnacted, a dozen\ntimes, by the Congress of the United States; and, in the state courts\nof Ohio, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Missouri, it has been\nadjudged to be constitutional. How, then, is it possible for any mind,\namenable to legal rules for the decision of legal questions, to say\nthat Congress cannot legislate, or has not legislated, (except once or\ntwice inadvertently,) on the subject of slavery in the territories?\n\nOn this part of the argument, I have only a concluding remark to\nsubmit. The position I am contesting affirms generally that Congress\ncannot legislate upon the subject of slavery in the territories.\nThe _inexpediency_ of so legislating is further advocated on the\nground that it is repugnant to democratical principles to debar the\ninhabitants of the territories from governing themselves. Must the free\nmen of the territories, it is asked, have laws made for them by others?\nNo! It is anti-democratic, monarchical, intolerable. All men have the\nright of self-government; and this principle holds true with regard to\nthe inhabitants of territories, as well as the inhabitants of states.\n\nNow, if these declarations were a sincere and honest affirmation of\nhuman rights, I should respect them and honor their authors. Did\nthis doctrine grow out of a jealousy for the rights of man, a fear\nof usurpation, an assertion of the principle of self-government, I\nshould sympathize with it, while I denied its legality. But, sir, it\nis the most painful aspect of this whole case, that the very object\nand purpose of claiming these ample and sovereign rights for the\ninhabitants of the territories is, that they may deny _all_ rights to\na portion of their fellow-beings within them. Enlarge, aggrandize, the\nrights of the territorial settlers! And why? Because, by so doing, you\nenable them to abolish all rights for a whole class of human beings.\nThis claim, then, is not made for the purpose of making freemen more\nfree, but for making slaves more enslaved. The reason for denying to\nCongress the power to legislate for the territories, is the fear that\nCongress will prevent slavery in them. The reason for claiming the\nsupreme right of legislation for the territorial inhabitants, is the\nhope that they will establish slavery within their borders. Must not\nthat democracy be false which begets slavery as its natural offspring?\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIf it has now been demonstrated that Congress has uniformly legislated,\nand can legislate, on the subject of slavery in the territories, I\nproceed to consider the next question. _Is it expedient to exclude\nslavery from them?_\n\nHere, on the threshold, we are confronted with the claim that the gates\nshall be thrown wide open to the admission of slavery into the broad\nwestern world; because, otherwise, the southern or slave states would\nbe debarred from enjoying their share of the common property of the\nUnion.\n\nI meet this claim with a counter-claim. If, on the one hand, the\nconsecration of this soil to freedom will exclude the slaveholders of\nthe south, it is just as true, on the other hand, that the desecration\nof it to slavery will exclude the freemen of the north. We, at the\nnorth, know too well the foundations of worldly prosperity and\nhappiness; we know too well the sources of social and moral welfare,\never voluntarily to blend our fortunes with those of a community\nwhere slavery is tolerated. If our demand for free territory, then,\nexcludes them, their demand for slave territory excludes us. Not one\nin five hundred of the freemen of the north could ever be induced to\ntake his family and domicile himself in a territory where slavery\nexists. They know that the institution would impoverish their estate,\ndemoralize their children, and harrow their own consciences with an\never-present sense of guilt, until those consciences, by force of habit\nand induration, should pass into that callous and more deplorable\nstate, where continuous crime could be committed without the feeling of\nremorse.\n\nSir, let me read a passage from Dr. Channing, written in 1798,--fifty\nyears ago,--when, at the early age of nineteen, he lived for some time\nin Richmond, Virginia, as a tutor in a private family. While there, he\nwrote a letter, of which the following is an extract:--\n\n \u201cThere is one object here which always depresses me. It is _slavery_.\n This alone would prevent me from ever settling in Virginia. Language\n cannot express my detestation of it. Master and slave! Nature never\n made such a distinction, or established such a relation. Man, when\n forced to substitute the will of another for his own, ceases to be a\n moral agent; his title to the name of man is extinguished; he becomes\n a mere machine in the hands of his oppressor. No empire is so valuable\n as the empire of one\u2019s self. No right is so inseparable from humanity,\n and so necessary to the improvement of our species, as the right of\n exerting the powers which nature has given us in the pursuit of any\n and of every good which we can obtain without doing injury to others.\n Should you desire it, I will give you some idea of the situation and\n character of the negroes in Virginia. It is a subject so degrading to\n humanity, that I cannot dwell on it with pleasure. I should be obliged\n to show you every vice, heightened by every meanness, and added to\n every misery. The influence of slavery on the whites is almost as\n fatal as on the blacks themselves.\u201d\n\nThis was written fifty years ago, by a young man from New England,\nonly nineteen years old. I know that, on all subjects of philanthropy\nand ethics, Dr. Channing was half a century in advance of his age.\nBut the sentiments he expressed on this subject, at the close of the\nlast century, are now the prevalent, deep-seated feelings of northern\nmen, excepting, perhaps, a few cases where these feelings have been\ncorrupted by interest.\n\nI repeat, then, that the north cannot shut out the south from the new\nterritories by a law for excluding slavery, more effectually than the\nsouth will shut out the north by the fact of introducing slavery. Even\nadmitting, then, that the _law_ is equal for both north and south, I\nwill show that all the _equity_ is on the side of the north.\n\nSir, from the establishment of our independence by the treaty of\n1783 to the time of the adoption of the constitution, and for years\nafterwards, no trace is to be found of an intention to enlarge the\nbounds of our republic; and it is well known that the treaty of 1803,\nfor acquiring Louisiana, was acknowledged by Mr. Jefferson, who made\nit, to be unconstitutional. In 1787, the Magna Charta of perpetual\nfreedom was secured to the North-west Territory. But the article\nexcluding slavery from it had an earlier date than 1787. On the 1st\nof March, 1784, Congress voted to accept a session from the state of\nVirginia of her claim to the territory north-west of the Ohio river.\nThe subject of providing a government for this and other territory\nwas referred to a committee consisting of Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Chase\nof Maryland, and Mr. Howell of Rhode Island. On the 19th of April,\n1784, their report was considered. That report contained the following\never-memorable clause:--\n\n \u201cThat after the year 1800, of the Christian era, there shall be\n neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in any of the said states,\n [they were spoken of as states, because it was always contemplated\n to erect the territories into states,] otherwise than in punishment\n of crimes whereof the party shall have been convicted to have been\n personally guilty.\u201d\n\nSir, we hear much said in our day of the Wilmot proviso against\nslavery. In former years, great credit has been given to Mr. Nathan\nDane, of Massachusetts, for originating the sixth article, (against\nslavery), in the ordinance of 1787. Sir, it is a misnomer to call this\nrestrictive clause the \u201cWilmot proviso.\u201d It is the _Jefferson proviso_,\nand Mr. Jefferson should have the honor of it; and would to Heaven that\nour southern friends, who kneel so devoutly at his shrine, could be\nanimated by that lofty spirit of freedom, that love for the rights of\nman, which alone can make their acts of devotion sacred.\n\nBut what is most material to be observed here is, that the plan of\ngovernment reported by Mr. Jefferson, and acted upon by the Congress at\nthat time, embraced all the \u201cwestern territory.\u201d It embraced all the\n\u201cterritory ceded, or _to be ceded_, by individual states to the United\nStates.\u201d--See _Journals of Congress, April 23, 1784_. If, then, we\nleave out Kentucky and Tennessee, as being parts of Virginia and North\nCarolina, all the residue of the territory north _or south_ of the Ohio\nriver, within the treaty limits of the United States, was intended,\nby the \u201cJefferson proviso,\u201d to be rescued from the doom of slavery.\nFor that proviso there were sixteen votes, and only seven against it.\nYet so singularly were these seven votes distributed, and so large\na majority of the states did it require to pass an act, that it was\nlost. The whole of the representation from seven states voted for it\nunanimously. Only two states voted unanimously against it. Had but one\nof Mr. Jefferson\u2019s colleagues voted with him, and had Mr. Spaight, of\nNorth Carolina, voted for it, the restrictive clause in the report\nwould have stood. But a minority of seven from the slaveholding states\ncontrolled a majority of sixteen from the free states,--ominous even at\nthat early day of a fate that has now relentlessly pursued us for sixty\nyears.\n\nThat vote was certainly no more than a fair representation of the\nfeeling of the country against slavery at that time. It was with such\na feeling that the \u201ccompromises of the constitution,\u201d as they are\ncalled, were entered into. Nobody dreaded or dreamed of the extension\nof slavery beyond its then existing limits. Yet, behold its aggressive\nmarch! Besides Kentucky and Tennessee, which I omit, for reasons\nbefore intimated, seven new slave states have been added to the\nUnion,--Mississippi, Alabama, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Florida,\nand Texas,--the last five out of territory not belonging to us at the\nadoption of the constitution; while only one free state, Iowa, has been\nadded during all this time, out of such newly-acquired territory.[2]\n\nBut there is another fact, which shows that the slaveholders have\nalready had their full share of territory, however wide the boundaries\nof this country may hereafter become.\n\nI have seen the number of _actual slaveholders_ variously estimated;\nbut the highest estimate I have ever seen is _three hundred thousand_.\nAllowing six persons to a family, this number would represent a white\npopulation of eighteen hundred thousand.\n\nMr. GAYLE, of Alabama, interrupted and said: If the gentleman from\nMassachusetts has been informed that the number of slaveholders is only\n300,000, then I will tell him his information is utterly false.\n\nMr. MANN. Will the gentleman tell me how many there are?\n\nMr. GAYLE. Ten times as many.\n\nMr. MANN. Ten times as many! Ten times 300,000 is 3,000,000; and\nallowing six persons to each family, this would give a population of\n18,000,000 directly connected with slaveholding; while the whole free\npopulation of the south, in 1840, was considerably less than five\nmillions!\n\nMr. MEADE, of Virginia, here interposed and said, that where the father\nor mother owned slaves, they were considered the joint property of the\nfamily. I think, if you include the grown and the young, there are\nabout three millions interested in slave property.\n\nMr. MANN resumed. My data lead me to believe that the number does\nnot now exceed two millions; but, at the time of the adoption of the\nconstitution, the number directly connected with slaveholding must\nhave been less than one million. Yet this one million have already\nmanaged to acquire the broad States of Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana,\nFlorida, and Texas, beyond the limits of the treaty of 1783; when,\nat the time the \u201ccompromises of the constitution\u201d were entered into,\nnot one of the parties supposed that we should ever acquire territory\nbeyond those limits. And this has been done for the benefit, (if it be\na benefit,) of that one million of slaveholders, against what is now\na free population of fifteen millions. And, in addition to this, it\nis to be considered that the non-slaveholding population of the slave\nstates have as direct and deep an interest as any part of the country,\nadverse to the extension of slavery. If all our new territory be doomed\nto slavery, where can the non-slaveholders of the slaveholding states\nemigrate to? Are they not to be considered? Has one half the population\nof the slaveholding states rights, which are paramount, not only to\nthe rights of the other half, but to the rights of all the free states\nbesides? for such is the claim. No, sir. I say that, if slavery were no\nmoral or political evil, yet, according to all principles of justice\nand equity, the slaveholders have already obtained their full share of\nterritory, though all the residue of this continent were to be annexed\nto the Union, and we were to become, in the insane language of the day,\n\u201can ocean-bound republic.\u201d\n\nI now proceed to consider the nature and effects of slavery, as a\nreason why new-born communities should be exempted from it. First, let\nme treat of its economical or financial, and, secondly, of its moral\naspects.\n\nThough slaves are said to be property, they are the preventers, the\nwasters, the antagonists of property. So far from facilitating the\nincrease of individual or national wealth, slavery retards both. It\nblasts worldly prosperity. Other things being equal, a free people\nwill thrive and prosper, in a mere worldly sense, more than a people\ndivided into masters and slaves. Were we so constituted as to care for\nnothing, to aspire to nothing, beyond mere temporal well being, this\nwell being would counsel us to abolish slavery wherever it exists, and\nto repel its approach wherever it threatens.\n\nEnslave a man, and you destroy his ambition, his enterprise, his\ncapacity. In the constitution of human nature, the desire of bettering\none\u2019s condition is the mainspring of effort. The first touch of slavery\nsnaps this spring. The slave does not participate in the value of the\nwealth he creates. All he earns another seizes. A free man labors,\nnot only to improve his own condition, but to better the condition\nof his children. The mighty impulse of parental affection repays for\ndiligence, and makes exertion sweet. The slave\u2019s heart never beats with\nthis high emotion. However industrious and frugal he may be, he has\nnothing to bequeath to his children,--or nothing save the sad bonds\nhe himself has worn. Fear may make him work, but hope--never. When he\nmoves his tardy limbs, it is because of the suffering that goads him\nfrom behind, and not from the bright prospects that beckon him forward\nin the race.\n\nWhat would a slave owner at the south think, should he come to\nMassachusetts, and there see a farmer seize upon his hired man, call in\na surgeon, and cut off all the flexor muscles of his arms and legs? I\ndo not ask what he would think of his humanity, but what would he think\nof his sanity? Yet the planter does more than this when he makes a man\na slave. He cuts deeper than the muscles; he destroys the spirit that\nmoves the muscles.\n\nIn all ages of the world, among all nations, wherever the earnings of\nthe laborer have been stolen from him, his energies have gone with\nhis earnings. Under the villeinage system of England, the villeins\nwere a low, idle, spiritless race; dead to responsibility; grovelling\nin their desires; resistant of labor; without enterprise; without\nforesight. This principle is now exemplified in the landlord and\ntenant system of Ireland. If a tenant is to be no better off for the\nimprovements he makes on an estate, he will not make the improvements.\nLook at the seigniories of New York,--the anti-rent districts as they\nare now called;--every man acquainted with the subject knows that\nboth people and husbandry are half a century behind the condition of\ncontiguous fee-simple proprietorships. All history illustrates the\nprinciple, that when property is insecure, it will not be earned.\nIf a despot can seize and confiscate the property of his subject at\npleasure, the subject will not acquire property, and thereby give to\nhimself the conspicuousness that invites the plunder. And if this be\nso when property is merely insecure, what must be the effect when a\nman has no property whatever in his earnings? Who does not know that a\nslave, who can rationally hope to purchase his freedom, will do all the\nwork he ever did before, and earn his freedom-money besides? Slavery,\ntherefore, though claiming to be a kind of property, is the bane of\nproperty; and the more slaves there are found in the inventory of a\nnation\u2019s wealth, the less in value will the aggregate of that inventory\nbe.\n\nThis is _one_ of the reasons why slave labor is so much less efficient\nthan free labor. The former can never compete with the latter; and\nwhile the greater service is performed with cheerfulness, the smaller\nis extorted by fear. Just as certain as that the locomotive can outrun\nthe horse, and the lightning outspeed the locomotive, just so certain\nis it that he who is animated by the hopes and the rewards of freedom\nwill outstrip the disheartened and fear-driven slave.\n\nThe intelligent freeman can afford to live well, dress decently, and\noccupy a comfortable tenement. A scanty subsistence, a squalid garb, a\nmean and dilapidated hovel, proclaim the degradation of the slave. The\nslave states gain millions of dollars every year from the privations,\nthe mean food, clothing, and shelter to which the slaves are subjected;\nand yet they grow rich less rapidly than states where millions of\ndollars are annually expended for the comforts and conveniences of the\nlaborer. More is lost in production than is gained by privation.\n\nA universal concomitant of slavery is, that it makes white labor\ndisreputable. Being disreputable, it is shunned. The pecuniary loss\nresulting from this is incalculable. Dry up the myriad headsprings of\nthe Mississippi, and where would be the mighty volume of waters which\nnow bear navies on their bosom, and lift the ocean itself above its\nlevel, by their outpouring flood? Abolish those sources of wealth,\nwhich consist in the personal industry of every man, and of each member\nof every man\u2019s family, and that wide-spread thrift, and competence, and\nelegance, which are both the reward and the stimulus of labor, will be\nabolished with them. Forego the means, and you forfeit the end. You\nmust use the instrument if you would have the product. Nothing but the\nfeeling of independence, the conscious security of working for one\u2019s\nself and one\u2019s family, will, in the present state of the world, make\nlabor profitable.\n\nI know it has been recently said in this capital, and by high\nauthority, that, with the exception of menial services, it is not\ndisreputable at the south for a white man to labor. There are two ways,\neach independent of the other, to disprove this assertion. One of them\nconsists in the testimony of a host of intelligent witnesses acquainted\nwith the condition of things at the south. I might quote page after\npage from various sources; but, as the assertion comes from a gentleman\nbelonging to South Carolina, [Mr. CALHOUN, of the Senate,] I will meet\nit with the statement of another gentleman belonging to the same\nstate. I refer to Mr. William Gregg, of Charleston, a gentleman who is\nextensively acquainted with the social condition of men, both north and\nsouth.\n\nIn that state, according to the last census, there were about 150,000\nfree whites _over twelve years of age_. \u201cOf this class,\u201d says Mr.\nGregg, \u201cfifty thousand are non-producers.\u201d[3] I suppose South Carolina\nto be as thrifty a slave state as there is, perhaps excepting Georgia;\nyet here is one third part of the population, old enough to work and\nable to work, who are idle, and of course vicious,--non-producers, but\nthe worst kind of consumers.\n\nAnother answer to the above assertion is, that if white labor were\nreputable at the south, and white men were industrious, the whole\ncountry would be a garden,--a terrestrial paradise,--so far as\nneatness, abundance, and beauty are concerned. _Where are the_ RESULTS\n_of this respected and honored white labor_? In a country where few\nexpenses are necessary to ward off the rigors of winter; where the\nrichest staples of the world are produced; where cattle and flocks need\nbut little shelter, and sometimes none; if man superadded his industry\nto the bounties of nature, want would be wholly unknown, competence\nwould give place to opulence, and the highest decorations of art would\nmingle with the glowing beauties of nature.\n\nBut hear Mr. Gregg:--\n\n \u201cMy recent visit to the northern states has fully satisfied me that\n the true secret of our difficulties lies in the want of energy on\n the part of our capitalists, and ignorance and laziness on the part\n of those who ought to labor. We need never look for thrift while we\n permit our immense timber forests, granite quarries, and mines to lie\n idle, and supply ourselves with hewn granite, pine boards, laths,\n shingles, &c., furnished by the _lazy_ dogs of the north. Ah! worse\n than this; we see our back-country farmers, many of whom are too lazy\n to mend a broken gate, or repair the fences to protect their crops\n from the neighboring stock, actually supplied with their axe, hoe, and\n broom handles, pitchforks, rakes, &c., by the _indolent_ mountaineers\n of New Hampshire and Massachusetts. The time was, when every old woman\n had her gourd, from which the country gardens were supplied with seed.\n We now find it more convenient to permit this duty to devolve on our\n careful friends, the Yankees. Even our boat oars, and handspikes for\n rolling logs, are furnished, ready-made, to our hand,\u201d &c. \u201cNeed I\n add, to further exemplify our excessive indolence, that the Charleston\n market is supplied with fish and wild game by northern men, who come\n out here as regularly as the winter comes, for this purpose, and from\n our own waters and forests often realize, in the course of one winter,\n a sufficiency to purchase a small farm in New England.\u201d--_Essays_,\n page 8.\n\nAgain:--\n\n \u201cIt is only necessary to travel over the sterile mountains of\n Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire, to learn the\n true secret of our difficulties,\u201d--\u201cto learn the difference between\n indolence and industry, extravagance and economy. We there see\n the scenery which would take the place of our unpainted mansions,\n dilapidated cabins, with mud chimneys, and no windows, broken-down\n rail fences, fields overgrown with weeds, and thrown away half\n exhausted, to be taken up by pine thickets; beef cattle unprotected\n from the inclemency of winter, and so poor as barely to preserve\n life.\u201d--_Essays_, page 7.\n\nAnd again:--\n\n \u201cShall we pass unnoticed the thousands of poor, ignorant, degraded\n white people among us, who, in this land of plenty, live in\n comparative nakedness and starvation? Many a one is reared in _proud_\n South Carolina, from birth to manhood, who has never passed a month in\n which he has not, some part of the time, been stinted for meat. Many a\n mother is there who will tell you that her children are but scantily\n supplied with bread, and much more scantily with meat, and if they be\n clad with comfortable raiment, it is at the expense of these scanty\n allowances of food. These may be startling statements, but they are\n nevertheless true; and if not believed in Charleston, the members\n of our legislature, who have traversed the state in electioneering\n campaigns, can attest their truth.\u201d--_Essays_, page 22.\n\nAfter such statements as these; after the testimony of hundreds and\nhundreds of eye-witnesses; after the proofs furnished by the aggregates\nof products, published in our Patent Office Reports, it is drawing a\nlittle too heavily on our credulity to say that the white man at the\nsouth is industrious. Industry manifests itself by its results, as the\nsun manifests itself by shining.\n\nBut slavery is hostile to the pecuniary advancement of the community\nin another way. The slave must be kept in ignorance. He must not be\neducated, lest with education should come a knowledge of his natural\nrights, and the means of escape or the power of vengeance. To secure\nthe abolition of his freedom, the growth of his mind must be abolished.\nHis education, therefore, is prohibited by statute under terrible\npenalties.\n\nNow, a man is weak in his muscles; he is strong only in his faculties.\nIn physical strength how much superior is an ox or a horse to a man; in\nfleetness, the dromedary or the eagle. It is through mental strength\nonly that man becomes the superior and governor of all animals.\n\nIt was not the design of Providence that the work of the world\nshould be performed by muscular strength. God has filled the earth\nand imbued the elements with energies of greater power than that of\nall the inhabitants of a thousand planets like ours. Whence come our\nnecessaries and our luxuries?--those comforts and appliances that\nmake the difference between a houseless, wandering tribe of Indians\nin the far west, and a New England village. They do not come wholly\nor principally from the original, unassisted strength of the human\narm, but from the employment, through intelligence and skill, of those\ngreat natural forces with which the bountiful Creator has filled every\npart of the material universe. Caloric, gravitation, expansibility,\ncompressibility, electricity, chemical affinities and repulsions,\nspontaneous velocities,--these are the mighty agents which the\nintellect of man harnesses to the car of improvement. The application\nof water, and wind, and steam, to the propulsion of machinery, and to\nthe transportation of men and merchandise from place to place, has\nadded ten thousand fold to the actual products of human industry. How\nsmall the wheel which the stoutest laborer can turn, and how soon will\nhe be weary! Compare this with a wheel driving a thousand spindles or\nlooms, which a stream of water can turn, and never tire. A locomotive\nwill take five hundred men, and bear them on their journey hundreds\nof miles in a day. Look at these same five hundred men, starting\nfrom the same point, and attempting the same distance, with all the\npedestrian\u2019s or the equestrian\u2019s toil and tardiness. The cotton mills\nof Massachusetts will turn out more cloth, in one day, than could have\nbeen manufactured by all the inhabitants of the eastern continent\nduring the tenth century. On an element which, in ancient times,\nwas supposed to be exclusively within the control of the gods, and\nwhere it was deemed impious for human power to intrude, even there\nthe gigantic forces of nature, which human science and skill have\nenlisted in their service, confront and overcome the raging of the\nelements,--breasting tempests and tides, escaping reefs and lee shores,\nand careering triumphant around the globe. The velocity of winds, the\nweight of waters, and the rage of steam, are powers, each one of which\nis infinitely stronger than all the strength of all the nations and\nraces of mankind, were it all gathered into a single arm. And all these\nenergies are given us on one condition,--the condition of intelligence,\nthat is, of education.\n\nHad God intended that the work of the world should be done by human\nbones and sinews, he would have given us an arm as solid and strong\nas the shaft of a steam engine; and enabled us to stand, day and\nnight, and turn the crank of a steamship while sailing to Liverpool\nor Calcutta. Had God designed the human muscles to do the work of the\nworld, then, instead of the ingredients of gunpowder or gun cotton,\nand the expansive force of heat, he would have given us hands which\ncould take a granite quarry and break its solid acres into suitable and\nsymmetrical blocks, as easily as we now open an orange. Had he intended\nus for bearing burdens, he would have given us Atlantean shoulders,\nby which we could carry the vast freights of rail-car and steamship,\nas a porter carries his pack. He would have given us lungs by which\nwe could blow fleets before us, and wings to sweep over ocean wastes.\nBut, instead of iron arms, and Atlantean shoulders, and the lungs\nof Boreas, he has given us a mind, a soul, a capacity of acquiring\nknowledge, and thus of appropriating all these energies of nature to\nour own use. Instead of a telescopic and microscopic eye, he has given\nus power to invent the telescope and the microscope. Instead of ten\nthousand fingers, he has given us genius inventive of the power loom\nand the printing press. Without a cultivated intellect, man is among\nthe weakest of all the dynamical forces of nature; with a cultivated\nintellect, he commands them all.\n\nAnd now, what does the slave maker do? He abolishes this mighty power\nof the intellect, and uses only the weak, degraded, and half-animated\nforces of the human limbs. A thousand slaves may stand by a river, and\nto them it is only an object of fear or of superstition. An educated\nman surpasses the ancient idea of a river god; he stands by the\nPenobscot, the Kennebec, the Merrimack, or the Connecticut; he commands\neach of them to do more work than could be performed by a hundred\nthousand men,--to saw timber, to make cloth, to grind corn,--and they\nobey. Ignorant slaves stand upon a coal mine, and to them it is only\na worthless part of the inanimate earth. An educated man uses the\nsame mine to print a million of books. Slaves will seek to obtain the\nsame crop from the same field, year after year, though the _pabulum_\nof that crop is exhausted; the educated man, with his chemist\u2019s eye,\nsees not only the minutest atoms of earth, but the imponderable gases\nthat permeate it, and he is rewarded with an unbroken succession of\nluxuriant harvests.\n\nNor are these advantages confined to those departments of nature where\nher mightiest forces are brought into requisition. In accomplishing\nwhatever requires delicacy and precision, nature is as much more\nperfect than man as she is more powerful in whatever requires strength.\nWhether in great or in small operations, all the improvements in the\nmechanical and the useful arts come as directly from intelligence as\na bird comes out of a shell, or the beautiful colors of a flower out\nof sunshine. The slave worker is forever prying at the short end of\nNature\u2019s lever, and using the back instead of the edge of her finest\ninstruments.\n\nSir, the most abundant proof exists, derived from all departments of\nhuman industry, that uneducated labor is comparatively unprofitable\nlabor. I have before me the statements of a number of the most\nintelligent gentlemen of Massachusetts, affirming this fact as the\nresult of an experience extending over many years. In Massachusetts\nwe have no native-born child wholly without school instruction; but\nthe degrees of attainment, of mental development, are various. Half a\ndozen years ago, the Secretary of the Massachusetts Board of Education\nobtained statements from large numbers of our master manufacturers,\nauthenticated from the books of their respective establishments, and\ncovering a series of years, the result of which was, that increased\nwages were found in connection with increased intelligence, just as\ncertainly as increased heat raises the mercury in the thermometer.\nForeigners, and those coming from other states, who made their marks\nwhen they receipted their bills, earned the least; those who had a\nmoderate or limited education occupied a middle ground on the pay-roll;\nwhile the intelligent young women who worked in the mills in winter,\nand taught schools in summer, crowned the list. The larger capital, in\nthe form of intelligence, yielded the larger interest in the form of\nwages. This inquiry was not confined to manufactures, but was extended\nto other departments of business, where the results of labor could be\nmade the subject of exact measurement.\n\nThis is universally so. The mechanic sees it, when he compares the work\nof a stupid with that of an awakened mind. The traveller sees it, when\nhe passes from an educated into an uneducated nation. Sir, I have seen\ncountries in Europe, lying side by side, where, without compass or\nchart, without bound or landmark, I could run the line of demarcation\nbetween the two, by the broad, legible characters which ignorance has\nwritten on roads, fields, houses, and the persons of men, women, and\nchildren, on one side, and which knowledge has inscribed on the other.\n\nThis difference is most striking in the mechanic arts, but it is\nclearly visible also in husbandry. Not the most fertile soil, not mines\nof silver and gold, can make a nation rich, without intelligence. Who\never had a more fertile soil than the Egyptians? Who have handled more\nsilver and gold than the Spaniards? The universal cultivation of the\nmind and heart is the only true source of opulence;--the cultivation\nof the mind, by which to lay hold on the treasures of nature;\nthe cultivation of the heart, by which to devote those treasures\nto beneficent uses. Where this cultivation exists, no matter how\nbarren the soil or ungenial the clime, there comfort and competence\nwill abound; for it is the intellectual and moral condition of the\ncultivator that impoverishes the soil or makes it teem with abundance.\nHe who disobeys the law of God in regard to the culture of the\nintellectual and spiritual nature, may live in the valley of the Nile,\nbut he can rear only the \u201clean kine\u201d of Pharaoh; but he who obeys the\nhighest law may dwell in the cold and inhospitable regions of Scotland\nor of New England, and \u201cwell-formed and fat-fleshed kine\u201d shall feed on\nall his meadows. If Pharaoh will be a taskmaster, and will not let the\nbondmen go free, the corn in his field shall be the \u201cseven thin ears\nblasted by the east wind;\u201d but if he will obey the commandments of the\nLord, then behold there shall be \u201cseven ears of corn upon one stalk,\nall rank and good.\u201d Sir, the sweat of a slave poisons the soil upon\nwhich it falls; his breath is mildew to every green thing; his tear\nwithers the verdure it drops upon.\n\nBut slavery makes the general education of the whites impossible. You\ncannot have general education without Common Schools. Common Schools\ncannot exist where the population is sparse. Where slaves till the\nsoil, or do the principal part of whatever work is done, the free\npopulation must be sparse. Slavery, then, by an inexorable law, denies\ngeneral education to the whites. The providence of God is just and\nretributive. Create a serf caste, and debar them from education, and\nyou necessarily debar a great portion of the privileged class from\neducation also. It is impossible, in the present state of things,\nor in any state of things which can be foreseen, to have free and\nuniversal education in a slave state. The difficulty is insurmountable.\nFor a well-organized system of Common Schools, there should be two\nhundred children, at least, living in such proximity to each other that\nthe oldest of them can come together to a central school. It is not\nenough to gather from within a circle of half a dozen miles\u2019 diameter\nfifty or sixty children for a single school. This brings all ages and\nall studies into the same room. A good system requires a separation of\nschool children into four, or at least into three, classes, according\nto ages and attainments. Without this gradation, a school is bereft\nof more than half its efficiency. Now, this can never be done in an\nagricultural community where there are two classes of men--one to do\nall the work, and the other to seize all the profits. With New England\nhabits of industry, and with that diversified labor which would be sure\nto spring from intelligence, the State of Virginia, which skirts us\nhere on the south, would support all the population of the New England\nstates, and fill them with abundance.\n\nMr. BAYLY. We have as great a population as New England now.\n\nMr. MANN. As great a population as New England!!\n\nMr. BAYLY. We send fifteen representatives.\n\n[A voice. And how many of them represent slaves?]\n\nMr. MANN. Massachusetts alone sends ten representatives.\n\n[A voice. And the rest of New England twenty-one more.]\n\nMr. MANN. I say, sir, the single State of Virginia could support\nin abundance the whole population of New England. With such a free\npopulation, the school children would be so numerous that public\nschools might be opened within three or four miles of each other all\nover its territory,--the light of each of which, blending with its\nneighboring lights, would illumine the whole land. They would be\nschools, too, in point of cheapness, within every man\u2019s means. The\ndegrading idea of pauper schools would be discarded forever. But what\nis the condition of Virginia now? One quarter part of all its adult\nfree white population are unable to read or write, and were proclaimed\nto be so by a late governor, in his annual message, without producing\nany reform. Their remedy is to choose a governor who will not proclaim\nsuch a fact. When has Virginia, in any state or national election,\ngiven a majority equal to the number of its voters unable to read\nor write? A _republican_ government supported by the two pillars of\nSlavery and Ignorance!\n\nIn South Carolina there is also a fund for the support of pauper\nschools; but this had become so useless, and was so disdained by its\nobjects, that a late governor of the state, in his annual message,\nrecommended that it should be withdrawn from them altogether.\n\nYet in many of the slave states there are beautiful paper systems\nof Common Schools,--dead laws in the statute books,--and the census\ntells us how profitless they have been. In 1840, in the fifteen slave\nstates and territories, there were only 201,085 scholars at the primary\nschools. In the same class of schools in the free states, there were\n1,626,028,--eight times as many. New York alone had 502,367, or two\nand a half times as many. The scholars in the primary schools of\nOhio alone, outnumbered all those in the fifteen slave states and\nterritories by more than 17,000. In the slave states, almost one tenth\npart of the free white population over twenty years of age are unable\nto read and write. In the free states, less than one in one hundred and\nfifty; and at least four fifths of these are foreigners, who ought not\nto be included in the computation. Many of the slave states, too, have\nmunificent school funds. Kentucky has one of more than a million of\ndollars; Tennessee, of two millions; yet, in 1837, Governor Clarke, of\nKentucky, declared, in his message to the legislature, that \u201cone third\nof the adult population were unable to write their names;\u201d and in the\nState of Tennessee, according to the last census, there were 58,531 of\nthe same description of persons. Surely it would take more than five\nof these to make three freemen; for the more a state has of them, the\nless of intelligent freedom will there be in it. And if the schools\nin the slave states are compared with the schools in the free states,\nthe deficiency in quality will be found as great as the deficiency in\nnumber.\n\nSir, during the last ten years I have had a most extensive\ncorrespondence with the intelligent friends of education in the slave\nstates. They yearn for progress, but they cannot obtain it. They\nprocure laws to be passed, but there is no one to execute them. They\nset forth the benefits and the blessings of education; but they speak\nin a vacuum, and no one hears the appeal. If a parent wishes to educate\nhis children, he must send them from home, and thus suffer a sort\nof bereavement, even while they live; or he must employ a tutor or\ngoverness in his family, which few are able to do. The rich may do it,\nbut what becomes of the children of the poor? In cities the obstacles\nare less; but the number of persons resident in cities is relatively\nsmall. All this is the inevitable consequence of slavery; and it is\nas impossible for free, thorough, universal education to co\u00ebxist with\nslavery as for two bodies to occupy the same space at the same time.\nSlavery would abolish education, if it should invade a free state;\neducation would abolish slavery, if it _could_ invade a slave state.\n\nDestroying common education, slavery destroys the fruits of common\neducation,--the inventive mind, practical talent, the power of adapting\nmeans to ends in the business of life. Whence have come all those\nmechanical and scientific improvements and inventions which have\nenriched the world with so many comforts, and adorned it with so many\nbeauties; which to-day give enjoyments and luxuries to a common family\nin a New England village, that neither Queen Elizabeth of England nor\nany of her proud court ever dreamed of, but a little more than two\ncenturies ago? Among whom have these improvements originated? All\nhistory and experience affirm that they have come, and must come, from\npeople among whom education is most generous and unconfined. Increase\nthe _constituency_, if I may so speak, of developed intellect, and you\nincrease in an equal ratio the chances of inventive, creative genius.\nFrom what part of our own country has come the application of steam\nto the propulsion of boats for commercial purposes, or of wheels for\nmanufacturing purposes? Where have the various and almost infinite\nimprovements been made which have resulted in the present perfection\nof cotton and woollen machinery? Whence came the invention of the\ncotton-gin, and the great improvements in railroads? Where was born the\nmighty genius who invented the first lightning rod, which sends the\nelectric fluid harmless into the earth; or that other genius, not less\nbeneficent, who invented the second lightning rod, which sends the same\nfluid from city to city on messages of business or of affection? Sir,\nthese are results which you can no more have without common education,\nwithout imbuing the public mind with the elements of knowledge, than\nyou can have corn without planting, or harvests without sunshine.\n\nLook into the Patent Office reports, and see in what sections of\ncountry mechanical improvements and the application of science to the\nuseful arts have originated. Out of _five hundred and seventy-two_\npatents issued in 1847, only _sixty-six_ went to the slave states. The\npatents annually issued, it is true, are a mingled heap of chaff and\nwheat, but some of it is wheat worthy of Olympus. I think the Patent\nOffice reports show that at least six or eight times as many patents\nhave been taken out for the north as for the south. What improvements\nwill a slave ever make in agricultural implements; in the manufacture\nof metals; in preparing wool, cotton, silk, fur, or paper; in chemical\nprocesses; in the application of steam; in philosophical, nautical,\nor optical instruments; in civil engineering, architecture, the\nconstruction of roads, canals, wharves, bridges, docks, piers, &c.;\nin hydraulics or pneumatics; in the application of the mechanical\npowers; in household furniture, or wearing apparel; in printing,\nbinding, engraving, &c., &c.? This question, when put in reference to\nslaves, appears ridiculous; and yet it is no more absurd, when asked\nin reference to an ignorant slave, than when asked in reference to an\nuneducated white man. The fact that the latter is a voter makes no\ndifference, notwithstanding the common opinion, in certain latitudes,\nthat it does. All such improvements come from minds which have had an\nearly awakening, and been put on scientific trains of thought in their\nchildhood and youth,--a thing utterly impossible for the people at\nlarge, without Common Schools.\n\nThese are causes; now look at effects. In the New England states, the\niron manufacture is twenty times as much, according to the population,\nas it is in Virginia; and yet Virginia has far more of the ore than\nthey. In cotton, we can hardly find a fraction low enough to express\nthe difference. The ship-building in Maine and Massachusetts is\nthirty-five times as much as in Virginia. The north comes to the south,\ncuts their timber, carries it home, manufactures it, and then brings\nit back, wrought into a hundred different forms, to be sold to those\nwho would see it rot before their eyes.\n\nCan any man give a reason why Norfolk should not have grown like New\nYork, other than the difference in the institutions of the people?\nJamestown was settled before Plymouth, and had _natural_ advantages\nsuperior to it. Plymouth now has a population of between seven and\neight thousand, is worth two millions of dollars, and taxed itself last\nyear, for schools and schoolhouses, more than seven thousand dollars. I\nought rather to say, that it invested more than seven thousand dollars\nin a kind of stock that yields a hundred per cent. income. How many\nbats there may be in the ruins of Jamestown, the last census does not\ninform us.\n\nThe books printed at the south I suppose not to be equal to _one\nfiftieth_ part of the number printed at the north. In maps, charts,\nengravings, and so forth, the elements of comparison exist only on one\nside.\n\nOut of universal education come genius, skill, and enterprise, and the\ndesire of bettering one\u2019s condition. Industry and frugality are their\nconcomitants. Diversified labor secures a home market. Diligence earns\nmuch, but the absence of the vices of indolence saves more. Hence\ncomforts abound, while capital accumulates. After the home consumption\nis supplied, there is a surplus for export. The balance of trade is\nfavorable. All the higher institutions of learning and religion can be\nliberally supported. These institutions impart an elevated and moral\ntone to society. Hence efforts for all kinds of social ameliorations.\nTemperance societies spring up. Societies for preventing crime; for\nsaving from pauperism; for the reform of prisons and the reformation\nof prisoners; for peace; for sending missionaries to the heathen; for\ndiffusing the gospel,--all these, where a sound education is given,\ngrow up, in the order of Providence, as an oak grows out of an acorn.\n\nIn one thing the south has excelled,--in training statesmen. The\nprimary and the ultimate effects of slavery upon this fact are so well\nset forth in a late sermon by Dr. Bushnell, of Hartford, Connecticut,\nthat I will read a passage from it:--\n\n \u201cAnd here, since this institution of slavery, entering into the\n fortunes of our history, complicates in so many ways the disorders\n we suffer, I must pause a few moments to sketch its characteristics.\n Slavery, it is not to be denied, is an essentially barbarous\n institution. It gives us, too, that sign which is the perpetual\n distinction of barbarism, that it has no law of progress. The highest\n level it reaches is the level at which it begins. Indeed, we need not\n scruple to allow that it has yielded us one considerable advantage,\n in virtue of the fact that it produces its best condition first.\n For while the northern people were generally delving in labor, for\n many generations, to create a condition of comfort, slavery set the\n masters at once on a footing of ease, gave them leisure for elegant\n intercourse, for unprofessional studies, and seasoned their character\n thus with that kind of cultivation which distinguishes men of society.\n A class of statesmen were thus raised up, who were prepared to figure\n as leaders in scenes of public life, where so much depends on manners\n and social address. But now the scale is changing. Free labor is\n rising, at length, into a state of wealth and comfort, to take the\n lead of American society. Meanwhile, the foster-sons of slavery,--the\n high families, the statesmen,--gradually receding in character, as\n they must under this vicious institution, are receding also in power\n and influence, and have been ever since the revolution. Slavery is\n a condition against nature; the curse of nature, therefore, is on\n it, and it bows to its doom by a law as irresistible as gravity. It\n produces a condition of ease which is not the reward of labor, and a\n state of degradation which is not the curse of idleness. Therefore,\n the ease it enjoys cannot but end in a curse, and the degradation\n it suffers cannot rise into a blessing. It nourishes imperious and\n violent passions. It makes the masters solitary sheiks on their\n estates, forbidding thus the possibility of public schools, and\n preventing also that condensed form of society which is necessary to\n the vigorous maintenance of churches. Education and religion thus\n displaced, the dinner table only remains, and on this hangs, in great\n part, the keeping of the social state. But however highly we may\n estimate the humanizing power of hospitality, it cannot be regarded\n as any sufficient spring of character. It is neither a school nor a\n gospel. And when it comes of self-indulgence, or only seeks relief\n for the tedium of an idle life, scarcely does it bring with it the\n blessings of a virtue. The accomplishments it yields are of a mock\n quality, rather than of a real, having about the same relation to a\n substantial and finished culture that honor has to character. This\n kind of currency will pass no longer; for, it is not expense without\n comfort, or splendor set in disorder, as diamonds in pewter; it is not\n air in place of elegance, or assurance substituted for ease; neither\n is it to be master of a fluent speech, or to garnish the same with\n stale quotations from the classics; much less is it to live in the\n Don Juan vein, accepting barbarism by poetic inspiration,--the same\n by which a late noble poet, drawing out of Turks and pirates, became\n the chosen laureate of slavery,--not any or all of these can make up\n such a style of man, or of life, as we in this age demand. We have\n come up now to a point where we look for true intellectual refinement,\n and a ripe state of personal culture. But how clearly is it seen to\n be a violation of its own laws, for slavery to produce a genuine\n scholar, or a man who, in any department of excellence, unless it be\n in politics, is not a full century behind his time? And if we ask for\n what is dearer and better still, for a pure Christian morality, the\n youth of slavery are trained in no such habits as are most congenial\n to virtue. The point of honor is the only principle many of them know.\n Violence and dissipation bring down every succeeding generation to\n a state continually lower; so that now, after a hundred and fifty\n years are passed, the slaveholding territory may be described as a\n vast missionary ground, and one so uncomfortable to the faithful\n ministry of Christ, by reason of its jealous tempers, and the known\n repugnance it has to many of the first maxims of the gospel, that\n scarcely a missionary can be found to enter it. Connected with this\n moral decay, the resources of nature also are exhausted, and her\n fertile territories changed to a desert, by the uncreating power of a\n spendthrift institution. And then, having made a waste where God had\n made a garden, slavery gathers up the relics of bankruptcy, and the\n baser relics still of virtue and all manly enterprise, and goes forth\n to renew, on a virgin soil, its dismal and forlorn history. Thus, at\n length, has been produced what may be called the bowie-knife style\n of civilization, and the new west of the south is overrun by it,--a\n spirit of blood which defies all laws of God and man;--honorable, but\n not honest; prompt to resent an injury, slack to discharge a debt;\n educated to ease, and readier, of course, when the means of living\n fail, to find them at the gambling table or the race-ground, than in\n any work of industry,--probably squandering the means of living there,\n to relieve the tedium of ease itself.\u201d\n\nThe free schools of the north lead to the common diffusion of\nknowledge, and the equalization of society. The private schools of\nthe south divide men into patricians and plebeians; so that, in the\nlatter, a nuisance grows out of education itself. In the public schools\nof New York there are libraries now amounting to more than a million\nof volumes. In the schools of Massachusetts the number of volumes\nis relatively less; but the quality is greatly superior. In each of\nthese states, within half an hour\u2019s walk of the poorest farm-house or\nmechanic\u2019s shop, there is a library, free and open to every child,\ncontaining works of history, biography, travels, ethics, natural\nscience, &c., &c., which will supply him with the noblest capital of\nintelligence, wherewith to commence the business of making himself a\nuseful and intelligent citizen. With the exception of New Orleans,\n(whose free schools were commenced and have been presided over by a\nMassachusetts man,) and three or four other cities, all the libraries\nin the public schools of the slave states could be carried in a\nschoolboy\u2019s satchel. The libraries of all the universities and colleges\nof the south contain 223,416 volumes; those of the north, 593,897\nvolumes. The libraries of southern theological schools, 22,800; those\nof northern, 102,080.\n\nLook into Silliman\u2019s Journal, or the volumes of the American Academy of\nArts and Sciences, and inquire whence the communications came. Where\nlive the historians of the country, Sparks, Prescott, Bancroft; the\npoets, Whittier, Bryant, Longfellow, Lowell; the jurists, Story, Kent,\nWheaton; the classic models of writing, Charming, Everett, Irving;\nthe female writers, Miss Sedgwick, Mrs. Sigourney, and Mrs. Child?\nAll this proceeds from no superiority of natural endowment on the one\nside, or inferiority on the other. The Southern States are all within\nwhat may be called \u201cthe latitudes of genius;\u201d for there is a small\nbelt around the globe, comprising but a few degrees of latitude, which\nhas produced all the distinguished men who have ever lived. I say this\ndifference results from no difference in natural endowment. The mental\nendowments at the south are equal to those in any part of the world.\nBut it comes because, in one quarter, the common atmosphere is vivified\nwith knowledge, electric with ideas, while slavery gathers its B\u0153otian\nfogs over the other. What West Point has been to our armies in Mexico,\nthat, and more than that, good schools would be to the intelligence and\nindustrial prosperity of our country.\n\nIt may seem a little out of place, but I cannot forbear here adverting\nto one point, which, as a lover of children and as a parent, touches\nme more deeply than any other. To whom are intrusted, at the south,\nthe early care and nurture of children? It has been thought by many\neducators and metaphysicians, that children learn as much before the\nage of seven years as ever afterwards. Who, at the south, administers\nthis early knowledge,--these ideas, these views, that have such\nsovereign efficacy in the formation of adult character? Who has the\ncustody of children during this ductile, forming, receptive period of\nlife,--a period when the mind absorbs whatever is brought into contact\nwith it? Sir, the children of the south, more or less, and generally\n_more_, are tended and nurtured by slaves. Ignorance, superstition,\nvulgarity, passion, and perhaps impurity, are the breasts at which\nthey nurse. Whatever afflictions God may see fit to bring upon me,\nwhatever other mercies He may withhold, may He give me none but persons\nof intelligence, of refinement, and of moral excellence, to walk with\nmy children during the imitative years of their existence, and to lead\nthem in the paths of knowledge, and breathe into their hearts the\nbreath of a moral and religious life.\n\nBefore considering the moral character of slavery, I wish to advert\nfor a moment to the position which we occupy as one of the nations\nof the earth, in this advancing period of the world\u2019s civilization.\nNations, like individuals, have a character. The date of the latter is\ncounted by years; that of the former, by centuries. No man can have any\nself-respect, who is not solicitous about his posthumous reputation.\nNo man can be a patriot who feels neither joy nor shame at the idea\nof the honor or the infamy which his age and his country shall leave\nbehind them. Nations, like individuals, have characteristic objects of\nambition. Greece coveted the arts; Rome gloried in war; but liberty\nhas been the goddess of our idolatry. Amid the storms of freedom were\nwe cradled; in the struggles of freedom have our joints been knit;\non the rich aliment of freedom have we grown to our present stature.\nWith a somewhat too boastful spirit, perhaps, have we challenged the\nadmiration of the world for our devotion to liberty; but an enthusiasm\nfor the rights of man is so holy a passion, that even its excesses\nare not devoid of the beautiful. We have not only won freedom for\nourselves, but we have taught its sacred lessons to others. The shout\nof \u201cDeath to tyrants, and freedom for man!\u201d which pealed through this\ncountry seventy years ago, has at length reached across the Atlantic;\nand whoever has given an attentive ear to the sounds which have come\nback to us, within the last few months, from the European world, cannot\nhave failed to perceive that they were only the far-travelled echoes\nof the American Declaration of Independence. But in the divine face of\nour liberty there has been one foul, demoniac feature. Whenever her\nvotaries would approach her to worship, they have been fain to draw a\nveil over one part of her visage, to conceal its hideousness. Whence\ncame this deformity on her otherwise fair and celestial countenance?\nSad is the story, but it must be told. Her mother was a vampire. As\nthe daughter lay helpless in her arms, the beldam tore open her living\nflesh, and feasted upon her lifeblood. Hence this unsightly wound, that\naffrights whoever beholds it. But, sir, I must leave dallying with\nthese ambiguous metaphors. One wants the plain, sinewy, Saxon tongue\nto tell of deeds that should have shamed devils. Great Britain was the\nmother. Her American colonies were the daughter. The mother lusted for\ngold. To get it, she made partnership with robbery and death. Shackles,\nchains, and weapons for human butchery, were her outfit in trade. She\nmade Africa her hunting-ground. She made its people her prey, and\nthe unwilling colonies her market-place. She broke into the Ethiop\u2019s\nhome, as a wolf into a sheepfold at midnight. She set the continent\na-flame, that she might seize the affrighted inhabitants as they ran\nshrieking from their blazing hamlets. The aged and the infant she left\nfor the vultures; but the strong men and the strong women she drove,\nscourged and bleeding, to the shore. Packed and stowed like merchandise\nbetween unventilated decks, so close that the tempest without could\nnot ruffle the pestilential air within, the voyage was begun. Once\na day the hatches were opened, to receive food and to disgorge the\ndead. Thousands and thousands of corpses, which she plunged into the\nocean from the decks of her slave ships, she counted only as the tare\nof commerce. The blue monsters of the deep became familiar with her\npathway, and, not more remorseless than she, they shared her plunder.\nAt length the accursed vessel reached the foreign shore. And there,\nmonsters of the land, fiercer and feller than any that roam the watery\nplains, rewarded the robber by purchasing his spoils.\n\nFor more than a century did the madness of this traffic rage. During\nall those years, the clock of eternity never counted out a minute that\ndid not witness the cruel death, by treachery or violence, of some son\nor daughter, some father or mother, of Africa. The three millions of\nslaves that now darken our southern horizon are the progeny of these\nprogenitors,--a doomed race, fated and suffering from sire to son. But\nthe enormities of the mother country did not pass without remonstrance.\nMany of the colonies expostulated against, and rebuked them. The\nNew England colonies, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, presented\nto the throne the most humble and suppliant petitions, praying for\nthe abolition of the trade. The colonial legislatures passed laws\nagainst it. But their petitions were spurned from the throne. Their\nlaws were vetoed by the governors. In informal negotiations attempted\nwith the ministers of the crown, the friends of the slave were made\nto understand that royalty turned an adder\u2019s ear to their prayers.\nThe profoundest feelings of lamentation and abhorrence were kindled\nin the bosoms of his western subjects by this flagitious conduct of\nthe king. In that dark catalogue of crimes, which led our fathers to\nforswear allegiance to the British throne, its refusal to prohibit\nthe slave trade to the colonies is made one of the most prominent of\nthose political offences which are said to \u201cdefine a tyrant.\u201d In the\noriginal draught of the Declaration of Independence, as prepared by\nMr. Jefferson, this crime of King George the Third is set forth in the\nfollowing words:--\n\n \u201cHe has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its\n most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant\n people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into\n slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur a miserable death in their\n transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of\n infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN King of Great Britain.\n Determined to keep a market where MEN should be bought and sold, he\n has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt\n to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce.\u201d\n\nNow, if the King of Great Britain prostituted his negative that slavery\nmight not be restricted, what, in after times, shall be said of those\nwho prostitute their affirmative that it may be extended? Yet it is\nnow proposed, in some of the state legislatures, and in this Capitol,\nto do precisely the same thing, in regard to the Territory of Oregon,\nwhich was done by Great Britain to her transatlantic possessions; not\nmerely to legalize slavery there, but to prohibit its inhabitants from\nprohibiting _it_. Though three thousand miles west of Great Britain,\nshe had certain constitutional rights over us, and could affect our\ndestiny. Though the inhabitants of Oregon are three thousand miles west\nof us, yet we have certain constitutional rights over them, and can\naffect their destiny. Great Britain annulled our laws for prohibiting\nslavery; we propose to annul an existing law of Oregon prohibiting\nslavery. If the execrations of mankind are yet too feeble and too\nfew to punish Great Britain for her wickedness, what scope, what\nfulness, what eternity of execration and anathema will be a sufficient\nretribution upon us, if we volunteer to copy her example? It was in\nthe eighteenth century when the mother country thus made merchandise\nof human beings,--a time when liberty was a forbidden word in the\nlanguages of Europe. It is in the nineteenth century that we propose to\nre\u00ebnact, and on an ampler scale, the same execrable villany,--a time\nwhen liberty is the rallying cry of all Christendom. So great has been\nthe progress of liberal ideas within the last century, that what was\nvenial at its beginning is unpardonable at its close. To drive coffles\nof slaves from here to Oregon, in the middle of the nineteenth century,\nis more infamous than it was to bring cargoes of slaves from Africa\nhere, in the middle of the eighteenth. Yet such is the period that men\nwould select to perpetuate and increase the horrors of this traffic.\n\nSir, how often, on this floor, have indignant remonstrances been\naddressed to the north, for agitating the subject of slavery? How often\nhave we at the north been told that we were inciting insurrection,\nfomenting a servile war, putting the black man\u2019s knife to the white\nman\u2019s throat. The air of this hall has been filled, its walls have\nbeen, as it were, sculptured, by southern eloquence, with images of\ndevastated towns, of murdered men and ravished women; and, as a defence\nagainst the iniquities of the institution, they have universally put\nin the plea that the calamity was entailed upon them by the mother\ncountry, that it made a part of the world they were born into, and\ntherefore they could not help it. I have always been disposed to\nallow its full weight to this palliation. But if they now insist upon\nperpetrating against the whole western world, which happens at present\nto be under our control, the same wrongs which, in darker days, Great\nBritain perpetrated against them, they will forfeit every claim to\nsympathy. Sir, here is a test. Let not southern men, who would now\nforce slavery upon new regions, ever deny that their slavery at home is\na chosen, voluntary, beloved crime.\n\nBut let us look, sir, at the moral character of slavery. It is proposed\nnot merely to continue this institution where it now exists, but to\nextend it to the Pacific Ocean,--to spread it over the vast slopes\nof the Rocky Mountains. Sir, the conduct of governments, like the\nconduct of individuals, is subject to the laws and the retributions of\nProvidence. If, therefore, there is any ingredient of wrong in this\ninstitution, we ought not to adopt it, or to permit it, even though\nit should pour wealth in golden showers over the whole surface of the\nland. In speaking of the moral character of slavery, sir, I mean to\nutter no word for the purpose of wounding the feelings of any man. On\nthe other hand, I mean not to wound the cause of truth by abstaining\nfrom the utterance of any word which I ought to speak.\n\nThe institution of slavery is against natural right. Jurists, from the\ntime of Justinian; orators, from the time of Cicero; poets, from the\ntime of Homer, declare it to be wrong. The writers on moral or ethical\nscience,--the expounders of the law of nations and of God,--denounce\nslavery as an invasion of the rights of man. They find no warrant\nfor it in the eternal principles of justice and equity; and in that\ngreat division which they set forth between right and wrong, they\narrange slavery in the catalogue of crime. All the noblest instincts\nof human nature rebel against it. Whatever has been taught by sage,\nor sung by poet, in favor of freedom, is a virtual condemnation of\nslavery. Whenever we applaud the great champions of liberty, who, by\nthe sacrifice of life in the cause of freedom, have won the homage\nof the world and an immortality of fame, we record the testimony of\nour hearts against slavery. Wherever patriotism and philanthropy have\nglowed brightest; wherever piety and a devout religious sentiment have\nburned most fervently, there has been the most decided recognition of\nthe universal rights of man.\n\nSir, let us analyze this subject, and see if slavery be not the most\ncompact, and concentrated, and condensed system of wrong which the\ndepravity of man has ever invented. Slavery is said to have had its\norigin in war. It is claimed that the captor had a right to take the\nlife of his captive; and that if he spared that life he made it his\nown, and thus acquired a right to control it. I deny the right of\nthe captor to the life of his captive; and even if this right were\nconceded, I deny his right to the life of the captive\u2019s offspring. But\nthis relation between captor and captive precludes the idea of peace;\nfor no peace can be made where there is no free agency. Peace being\nprecluded, it follows inevitably that the state of war continues.\nHence, the state of slavery is a state of war; and though active\nhostilities may have ceased, they are liable to break out, and may\nrightfully break out, at any moment. How long must our fellow-citizens,\nwho were enslaved in Algiers, have continued in slavery, before they\nwould have lost the right of escape or of resistance?\n\nThe gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. BOCOCK,] in his speech this morning,\nput the right of the slaveholder upon a somewhat different ground.\nHe said a man might acquire property in a horse before the existence\nof civil society, by catching a wild one. And so, he added, one man\nmight acquire property in another man, by subduing him to his will.\nThe superior force gave the right, whether to the horse or to the man.\nNow, if this be so, and if at any time the superior force should change\nsides, then it follows inevitably that the relation of the parties\nmight be rightfully changed by a new appeal to force.\n\nThe same gentleman claims Bible authority for slavery. He says, \u201cI\nsee slavery there tolerated, I had almost said inculcated. I see such\nlanguage as this: \u2018Both thy bondmen and thy bondmaids shall be of\nthe heathen that are round about you; of them shall you buy bondmen\nand bondmaids; and ye shall take them as an inheritance for your\nchildren after you, to inherit them for a possession,\u2019\u201d &c. Does not\nthe gentleman know that, by the same authority, the Israelitish slaves\nwere commanded to despoil their Egyptian masters, and to escape from\nbondage? Surely the latter is as good an authority as the former. If\nthe gentleman\u2019s argument is sound, he is bound to advocate a repeal of\nthe act of 1793. If the gentleman\u2019s argument is sound, the free states,\ninstead of surrendering fugitive slaves to their masters, are bound\nto give those masters a Red Sea reception and embrace; and the escape\nof the children of Israel into Canaan is a direct precedent for the\nunderground railroad to Canada.\n\nBoth the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. FRENCH,] yesterday, and the\ngentleman from Virginia, to-day, spoke repeatedly, and without the\nslightest discrimination, of \u201ca slave and a horse,\u201d \u201ca slave and a\nmule,\u201d &c. What should we think, sir, of a teacher for our children, or\neven of a tender of our cattle, who did not recognize the difference\nbetween men and mules,--between humanity and horse-flesh? What should\nwe think, if, on opening a work, claiming to be a scientific treatise\non zo\u00f6logy, we should find the author to be ignorant of the difference\nbetween biped and quadruped, or between men and birds, or men and\nfishes? Yet such errors would be trifling compared with those which\nhave been made through all this debate. They would be simple errors\nin natural history, perhaps harmless; but these are errors,--fatal\nerrors,--in humanity and Christian ethics. No, sir; all the legislation\nof the slave states proves that they do not treat, and cannot treat,\na human being as an animal. I will show that they are ever trying to\ndegrade him into an animal, although they can never succeed.\n\nThis conscious idea that the state of slavery is a state of war,--a\nstate in which superior force keeps inferior force down,--develops and\nmanifests itself perpetually. It exhibits itself in the statute books\nof the slave states, prohibiting the education of slaves, making it\nhighly penal to teach them so much as the alphabet; dispersing and\npunishing all meetings where they come together in quest of knowledge.\nLook into the statute books of the free states, and you will find law\nafter law, encouragement after encouragement, to secure the diffusion\nof knowledge. Look into the statute books of the slave states, and you\nfind law after law, penalty after penalty, to secure the extinction of\nknowledge. Who has not read with delight those books which have been\nwritten, both in England and in this country, entitled \u201cThe Pursuit of\nKnowledge under Difficulties,\u201d giving the biographies of illustrious\nmen, who, by an undaunted and indomitable spirit, had risen from\npoverty and obscurity to the heights of eminence, and blessed the world\nwith their achievements in literature, in science, and in morals? Yet\nhere, in what we call republican America, are fifteen great states,\nvying with each other to see which will bring the blackest and most\nimpervious pall of ignorance over three millions of human beings; nay,\nwhich can do most to stretch this pall across the continent, from the\nAtlantic to the Pacific.\n\nIs not knowledge a good? Is it not one of the most precious bounties\nwhich the all-bountiful Giver has bestowed upon the human race? Sir\nJohn Herschel, possessed of ample wealth, his capacious mind stored\nwith the treasures of knowledge, surrounded by the most learned society\nin the most cultivated metropolis in the world, says, \u201cIf I were to\npray for a taste which should stand me in stead, under every variety\nof circumstances, and be a source of happiness and cheerfulness to me\nthrough life, and a shield against its ills, however things might go\namiss, and the world frown upon me, it would be a taste for reading.\u201d\nYet it is now proposed to colonize the broad regions of the west with\nmillions of our fellow-beings, who shall never be able to read a book,\nor write a word; to whom knowledge shall bring no delight in childhood,\nno relief in the weary hours of sickness or convalescence, no solace in\nthe decrepitude of age; who shall perceive nothing of the beauties of\nart, who shall know nothing of the wonders of science, who shall never\nreach any lofty, intellectual conception of the attributes of their\ngreat Creator;--deaf to all the hosannas of praise which nature sings\nto her Maker; blind in this magnificent temple which God has builded.\n\nSir, it is one of the noblest attributes of man that he can derive\nknowledge from his predecessors. We possess the accumulated learning\nof ages. From ten thousand confluent streams, the river of truth,\nwidened and deepened, has come down to us; and it is among our choicest\ndelights, that if we can add to its volume, as it rolls on, it will\nbear a richer freight of blessings to our successors. But it is\nhere proposed to annul this beneficent law of nature; to repel this\nproffered bounty of Heaven. It is proposed to create a race of men,\nto whom all the lights of experience shall be extinguished; whose\nhundredth generation shall be as ignorant and as barbarous as its first.\n\nSir, I hold all voluntary ignorance to be a crime; I hold all enforced\nignorance to be a greater crime. Knowledge is essential to all rational\nenjoyment; it is essential to the full and adequate performance of\nevery duty. Whoever intercepts knowledge, therefore, on its passage to\na human soul; whoever strikes down the hand that is outstretched to\ngrasp it, is guilty of one of the most heinous of offences. Add to your\nvirtue knowledge, says the apostle; but here the command is, Be-cloud\nand be-little by ignorance whatever virtue you may possess.\n\nSir, let me justify the earnestness of these expressions by describing\nthe transition of feeling through which I have lately passed. I\ncome from a community where knowledge ranks next to virtue in the\nclassification of blessings. On the tenth day of April last, the day\nbefore I left home for this place, I attended the dedication of a\nschoolhouse in Boston which had cost $70,000. The mayor presided,\nand much of the intelligence and worth of the city was present on\nthe occasion. I see by a paper which I have this day received, that\nanother schoolhouse, in the same city, was dedicated on Monday of\nthe present week. It was there stated by the mayor that the cost of\nthe city schoolhouses which had been completed within the last three\nmonths was $200,000. On Tuesday of this week, a new high schoolhouse\nin the city of Cambridge was dedicated. Mr. Everett, the president of\nHarvard College, was present, and addressed the assembly in a long,\nand, I need not add, a most beautiful speech. That schoolhouse, with\ntwo others to be dedicated within a week, will have cost $25,000. Last\nweek, in the neighboring city of Charlestown, a new high schoolhouse,\nof a most splendid and costly character, was dedicated by the mayor\nand city government, by clergy and laity. But it is not mayors of\ncities and presidents of colleges alone that engage in the work of\nconsecrating temples of education to the service of the young. Since\nI have been here, the governor of the commonwealth, Mr. Briggs, went\nto Newburyport, a distance of forty miles, to attend the dedication\nof a schoolhouse which cost $25,000. On a late occasion, when the\nsame excellent chief magistrate travelled forty miles to attend the\ndedication of a schoolhouse in the country, some speaker congratulated\nthe audience because the governor of the commonwealth had come down\nfrom the executive chair to honor the occasion. \u201cNo,\u201d said he, \u201cI have\ncome up to the occasion to be honored by it.\u201d Within the last year,\n$200,000 have been given by individuals to Harvard College. Within a\nlittle longer time than this, the other two colleges in the state have\nreceived, together, a still larger endowment from individuals or the\nstate.\n\nThese measures are part of a great system which we are carrying on for\nthe elevation of the race. Last year, the voters of Massachusetts, in\ntheir respective towns, voluntarily taxed themselves about a million\nof dollars for the support of Common Schools. We have an old law on\nthe statute book, requiring towns to tax themselves for the support\nof public schools; but the people have long since lost sight of this\nlaw in the munificence of their contributions. Massachusetts is now\nerecting a reform school for vagrant and exposed children,--so many\nof whom come to us from abroad,--which will cost the state more than\na hundred thousand dollars. An unknown individual has given twenty\nthousand dollars towards it. We educate all our deaf and dumb and\nblind. An appropriation was made by the last legislature to establish\na school for idiots, in imitation of those beautiful institutions\nin Paris, in Switzerland, and in Berlin, where the most revolting\nand malicious of this deplorable class are tamed into docility, made\nlovers of order and neatness, and capable of performing many valuable\nservices. The future teacher of this school is now abroad, preparing\nhimself for his work. A few years ago, Mr. Everett, the present\npresident of Harvard College, then governor of the commonwealth,\nspoke the deep _convictions_ of Massachusetts people, when, in a\npublic address on education, he exhorted the fathers and mothers\nof Massachusetts in the following words: \u201cSave,\u201d said he, \u201csave,\nspare, scrape, stint, starve, do any thing but steal,\u201d to educate\nyour children. And Doctor Howe, the noble-hearted director of the\nInstitution for the Blind, lately uttered the deepest _sentiments_ of\nour citizens, when, in speaking of our duties to the blind, the deaf\nand dumb, and the idiotic, he said, \u201cThe sight of any human being left\nto brutish ignorance is always demoralizing to the beholders. There\nfloats not upon the stream of life a wreck of humanity so utterly\nshattered and crippled, but that its signals of distress should\nchallenge attention and command assistance.\u201d\n\nSir, it was all glowing and fervid with sentiments like these, that,\na few weeks ago, I entered this House,--sentiments transfused into my\nsoul from without, even if I had no vital spark of nobleness to kindle\nthem within. Imagine, then, my strong revulsion of feeling, when the\nfirst set, elaborate speech which I heard, was that of the gentleman\nfrom Virginia, proposing to extend ignorance to the uttermost bounds\nof this republic,--to legalize it, to enforce it, to necessitate it,\nand make it eternal. Since him, many others have advocated the same\nabhorrent doctrine. Not satisfied with dooming a whole race of our\nfellow-beings to mental darkness, impervious and everlasting,--not\nsatisfied with drawing this black curtain of ignorance between man\nand nature, between the human soul and its God, from the Atlantic to\nthe Rio Grande, across half the continent,--they desire to increase\nthis race ten, twenty millions more, and to unfold and spread out this\nblack curtain across the other half of the continent. When, sir, in the\nhalls of legislation, men advocate measures like this, it is no figure\nof speech to say that their words are the clankings of multitudinous\nfetters; each gesture of their arms tears human flesh with ten thousand\nwhips; each exhalation of their breath spreads clouds of moral darkness\nfrom horizon to horizon.\n\nTwenty years ago, a sharp sensation ran through the nerves of the\ncivilized world, at the story of a young man named Caspar Hauser,\nfound in the city of Nuremberg, in Bavaria. Though sixteen or\nseventeen years of age, he could not walk nor talk. He heard without\nunderstanding; he saw without perceiving; he moved without definite\npurpose. It was the soul of an infant in the body of an adult. After he\nhad learned to speak, he related that, from his earliest recollection,\nhe had always been kept in a hole so small, that he could not stretch\nout his limbs, where he saw no light, heard no sound, nor even\nwitnessed the face of the attendant who brought him his scanty food.\nFor many years conjecture was rife concerning his history, and all\nGermany was searched to discover his origin. After a long period of\nfruitless inquiry and speculation, public opinion settled down into\nthe belief that he was the victim of some great unnatural crime; that\nhe was the heir to some throne, and had been sequestered by ambition;\nor the inheritor of vast wealth, and had been hidden away by cupidity;\nor the offspring of criminal indulgence, and had been buried alive to\navoid exposure and shame. A German, Von Feuerbach, published an account\nof Caspar, entitled \u201cThe Example of a Crime on the Life of the Soul.\u201d\nBut why go to Europe to be thrilled with the pathos of a human being\nshrouded from the light of nature, and cut off from a knowledge of duty\nand of God? To-day, in this boasted land of light and liberty, there\nare three million Caspar Hausers; and, as if this were not enough,\nit is proposed to multiply their number tenfold, and to fill up all\nthe western world with these proofs of human avarice and guilt. It is\nproposed that we ourselves should create and should publish to the\nworld, not one, but untold millions of \u201cExamples of _a Crime on the\nLife of the Soul_.\u201d It is proposed that the self-styled freemen, the\nself-styled Christians, of fifteen great states in this American Union,\nshall engage in the work of procreating, rearing, and _selling_ Caspar\nHausers, often from their own loins; and if any further development\nof soul or of body is allowed to the American victims than was\npermitted to the Bavarian child, it is only because such development\nwill increase their market value at the barracoons. It is not from\nany difference of motive, but only the better to insure that motive\u2019s\nindulgence. The slave child must be allowed to use his limbs, or how\ncould he drudge out his life in the service of his master? The slave\ninfant must be taught to walk, or how, _under the shadow of this\nthrice-glorious Capitol_, could he join a coffle for New Orleans?\n\nI know, sir, that it has been said, within a short time past, that\nCaspar Hauser was an impostor, and his story a fiction. Would to God\nthat this could ever be said of his fellow-victims in America!\n\nFor another reason slavery is an unspeakable wrong. The slave is\ndebarred from testifying against a white man. The courts will not hear\nhim as a witness. By the principles of the common law, if any man\nsuffers violence at the hands of another, he can prefer his complaint\nto magistrates, or to the grand juries of the courts, who are bound\nto give him redress. Hence the law is said to hold up its shield\nbefore every man for his protection. It surrounds him in the crowded\nstreet and in the solitary place. It guards his treasures with greater\nvigilance than locks or iron safes; and against meditated aggressions\nupon himself, his wife, or his children, it fastens his doors every\nnight more securely than triple bolts of brass. But all these sacred\nprotections are denied to the slave. While subjected to the law of\nforce, he is shut out from the law of right. To suffer injury is his,\nbut never to obtain redress. For personal cruelties, for stripes that\nshiver his flesh, and blows that break his bones, for robbery or for\nmurder, neither he nor his friends can have preventive, remedy, or\nrecompense. The father, who is a slave, may see son or daughter scored,\nmangled, mutilated, or ravished before his eyes, and he must be dumb as\na sheep before its shearers. The wife may be dishonored in the presence\nof the husband, and, if he remonstrates or rebels, the miscreant who\ncould burn with the lust will burn not less fiercely with a vengeance\nto be glutted upon his foiler.\n\nSuppose, suddenly, by some disastrous change in the order of nature, an\nentire kingdom or community were to be enveloped in total darkness,--to\nhave no day, no dawn, but midnight evermore! Into what infinite forms\nof violence and wrong would the depraved passions of the human heart\nspring up, when no longer restrained by the light of day, and the\ndangers of exposure! So far as legal rights against his oppressors are\nconcerned, the slave lives in such a world of darkness. A hundred of\nhis fellows may stand around him and witness the wrongs he suffers,\nbut not one of them can appeal to jury, magistrate, or judge, for\npunishment or redress. The wickedest white man, in a company of\nslaves, bears a charmed life. There is not one of the fell passions\nthat rages in his bosom which he cannot indulge with wantonness and to\nsatiety, and the court has no ears to hear the complaint of the victim.\nHow dearly does every honorable man prize character! The law denies\nthe slave a character; for, however traduced, legal vindication is\nimpossible.\n\nAnd yet, infinitely flagrant as the anomaly is, the slave is amenable\nto the laws of the land for all offences which he may commit against\nothers, though he is powerless to protect himself by the same law from\noffences which others may commit against him. He may suffer all wrong,\nand the courts will not hearken to his testimony; but for the first\nwrong he does, the same courts inflict their severest punishments\nupon him. This is the reciprocity of slave law.--to be forever liable\nto be proved guilty, but never able to prove himself innocent; to\nbe subject to all punishments, but, through his own oath, to no\nprotection. Hear what is said by the highest judicial tribunal of South\nCarolina: \u201cAlthough slaves are held to be the absolute property of\ntheir owners, yet they have the power of committing crimes.\u201d--_2d Nott\nand McCord\u2019s Rep._, p. 179. A negro is so far amenable to the common\nlaw, that he may be one of three to constitute the number necessary to\nmake a riot.--_1st Bay\u2019s Rep._, 358. By the laws of the same state, a\nnegro may be himself stolen, and he has no redress; but if he steals\na negro from another, he shall be hung.--_2d Nott and McCord\u2019s Rep._,\n179. [_An example of this penalty suffered by a slave._] This is\nthe way that slave legislatures and slave judicatories construe the\ncommand of Christ, \u201cWhatsoever ye would that men should do unto you,\ndo ye also the same unto them.\u201d Nay, by the laws of some of the slave\nstates, where master and slave are engaged in a joint act, the slave is\nindictable, while the master is not.\n\nWhat rights are more sacred or more dear to us than the conjugal and\nthe parental? No savage nation, however far removed from the frontiers\nof civilization, has ever yet been discovered, where these rights\nwere unknown or unhonored. The beasts of the forest feel and respect\nthem. It is only in the land of slaves that they are blotted out and\nannihilated.\n\nSlavery is an unspeakable wrong to the conscience. The word\n\u201cconscience\u201d conveys a complex idea. It includes conscientiousness;\nthat is, the sentiment or instinct of right and wrong; and also\nintelligence, which is the guide of this sentiment. _Conscience_, then,\nimplies both the desire or impulse to do right, and also a knowledge of\nwhat is right. Nature endows us with the sentiment, but the knowledge\nwe must acquire. Hence we speak of an \u201cenlightened conscience,\u201d\nmeaning thereby not only the moral sense, but that knowledge of\ncircumstances, relations, tendencies and results, which is necessary\nin order to guide the moral sense to just conclusions. Each of these\nelements is equally necessary to enable a man to feel rightly and to\nact rightly. Mere knowledge, without the moral sense, can take no\ncognizance of the everlasting distinctions between right and wrong; and\nso the blind instinct, unguided by knowledge, will be forever at fault\nin its conclusions. The two were made to co\u00ebxist and operate together\nby Him who made the human soul. But the impious hand of man divorces\nthese twin capacities, wherever it denies knowledge. If one of these\nco\u00f6rdinate powers in the mental realm be annulled by the legislature,\nit may be called _law_; but it is repugnant to every law and attribute\nof God.\n\nBut, not satisfied with having invaded the human soul, and annihilated\none of its most sacred attributes, in the persons of three millions of\nour fellow-men; not satisfied with having killed the conscience, as\nfar as it can be killed by human device, and human force, in an entire\nrace; we are now invoked to multiply that race, to extend it over\nregions yet unscathed by its existence, and there to call into being\nother millions of men, upon whose souls, and upon the souls of whose\nposterity, the same unholy spoliation shall be committed forever.\n\nSlavery is an unspeakable wrong to the religious nature of man. The\ndearest and most precious of all human rights is the right of private\njudgment in matters of religion. I am interested in nothing else so\nmuch as in the attributes of my Creator, and in the relations which\nhe has established between me and himself, for time and for eternity.\nTo investigate for myself these relations, and their momentous\nconsequences; to \u201csearch the Scriptures;\u201d to explore the works of\nGod in the outward and visible universe; to ask counsel of the sages\nand divines of the ages gone by,--these are rights which it would be\nsacrilege in me to surrender; which it is a worse sacrilege in any\nhuman being or human government to usurp. Yet, by denying education\nto the slave, you destroy not merely the _right_, but the _power_, of\npersonal examination in regard to all that most nearly concerns the\nsoul\u2019s interests. Who so base as not to reverence the mighty champions\nof religious freedom, in days when the dungeon, the rack, and the fagot\nwere the arguments of a government theology? Who does not reverence,\nI say, Wickliffe, Huss, Luther, and the whole army of martyrs whose\nblood reddened the axe of English intolerance? Yet it was only for\nthis right of private judgment, for this independence of another man\u2019s\ncontrol in religious concernments, that the godlike champions of\nreligious liberty perilled themselves and perished. Yet it is this very\nreligious despotism over millions of men which it is now proposed, not\nto destroy, but to create. It is proposed not to break old fetters and\ncast them away, but to forge new ones and rivet them on. Sir, on the\ncontinent of Europe, and in the Tower of London, I have seen the axes,\nthe chains, and other horrid implements of death, by which the great\ndefenders of freedom for the soul were brought to their final doom,--by\nwhich political and religious liberty was cloven down; but fairer and\nlovelier to the view were axe and chain, and all the ghastly implements\nof death ever invented by religious bigotry or civil despotism to\nwring and torture freedom out of the soul of man;--fairer and lovelier\nwere they all than the parchment roll of this House on which shall be\ninscribed a law for profaning one additional foot of American soil with\nthe curse of slavery.\n\nAfter the above speech was delivered, I was referred to a Tract,\nwritten by a Virginian, on the subject of slavery; and, by the\npoliteness of its author, I have since obtained a copy of it. It is\nentitled, \u201c_Address to the People of West Virginia; showing that\nSlavery is injurious to the public welfare, and that it may be\ngradually abolished, without detriment to the rights and interests of\nSlaveholders._ BY A SLAVEHOLDER OF WEST VIRGINIA. Lexington: R. C.\nNoel. 1847.\u201d This Address was written by the Rev. Henry Ruffner, D. D.,\npresident of Lexington College, Lexington, Va. Some of the passages of\nthis Address are so striking; it is throughout so corroborative of one\nof the arguments contained in the speech; and coming, as it does, from\na Virginian, an eye-witness of the effects of slavery, and a holder\nof slaves, that I have thought it would be useful to append them. The\nextracts, of course, are not, as here, consecutive.\n\n Nowhere, since time began, have the two systems of slave labor and\n free labor been subjected to so fair and so decisive a trial of\n their effects on public prosperity as in these United States. Here\n the two systems have worked side by side for ages, under such equal\n circumstances, both political and physical, and with such ample time\n and opportunity for each to work out its proper effects, that all must\n admit the experiment to be now complete, and the result decisive.\n No man of common sense, who has observed this result, can doubt\n for a moment that the system of free labor promotes the growth and\n prosperity of states in a much higher degree than the system of slave\n labor. In the first settlement of a country, when labor is scarce and\n dear, slavery may give a temporary impulse to improvement; but even\n this is not the case, except in warm climates, and where free men are\n scarce and either sickly or lazy; and when we have said this, we have\n said all that experience in the United States warrants us to say, in\n favor of the policy of employing slave labor.\n\n It is the common remark of all who have travelled through the United\n States, that the free states and the slave states exhibit a striking\n contrast in their appearance. In the older free states are seen all\n the tokens of prosperity;--a dense and increasing population; thriving\n villages, towns, and cities; a neat and productive agriculture,\n growing manufactures, and active commerce.\n\n In the older parts of the slave states,--with a few local\n exceptions,--are seen, on the contrary, too evident signs of\n stagnation, or of positive decay;--a sparse population, a slovenly\n cultivation spread over vast fields that are wearing out, among\n others already worn out and desolate; villages and towns, \u201cfew and\n far between,\u201d rarely growing, often decaying, sometimes mere remnants\n of what they were, sometimes deserted ruins, haunted only by owls;\n generally no manufactures, nor even trades, except the indispensable\n few; commerce and navigation abandoned, as far as possible, to the\n people of the free states; and generally, instead of the stir and\n bustle of industry, a dull and dreamy stillness, broken, if broke at\n all, only by the wordy brawl of politics.\n\n New England and the middle states of New York, New Jersey, and\n Pennsylvania contained, in 1790, 1,968,000 inhabitants, and in 1840,\n 6,760,000; having gained, in this period, 243 per cent.\n\n The four old slave states had, in 1790, a population of 1,473,000,\n and in 1840, of 3,279,000; having gained, in the same period, 122 per\n cent., just about half as much, in proportion, as the free states.\n They ought to have gained about twice as much; for they had at first\n only seven inhabitants to the square mile, when the free states\n not only had upwards of twelve, but, on the whole, much inferior\n advantages of soil and climate. Even cold, barren New England, though\n more than twice as thickly peopled, grew in population at a faster\n rate than these old slave states.\n\n About half the territory of these old slave states is new country,\n and has comparatively few slaves. On this part the increase of\n population has chiefly taken place. On the old slave-labored lowlands,\n a singular phenomena has appeared; there, within the bounds of these\n rapidly growing United States,--yes, there, population has been long\n at a stand; yes, over wide regions,--especially in Virginia,--it has\n declined, and a new wilderness is gaining upon the cultivated land!\n What has done this work of desolation? Not war, nor pestilence; not\n oppression of rulers, civil or ecclesiastical; but _slavery_, a curse\n more destructive in its effects than any of them. It were hard to\n find, in old king-ridden, priest-ridden, overtaxed Europe, so large a\n country, where, within twenty years past, such a growing poverty and\n desolation have appeared.\n\n It is in the last period of ten years, from 1830 to 1840, that this\n consuming plague of slavery has shown its worst effects in the old\n Southern States. Including the increase in their newly-settled and\n western counties, they gained in population only 7\u00b9\u2044\u2082 per cent.; while\n cold, barren, thickly peopled New England gained 15, and the old\n Middle States 26 per cent. East Virginia actually fell off 26,000 in\n population; and, with the exception of Richmond and one or two other\n towns, her population continues to decline. Old Virginia was the first\n to sow this land of ours with slavery; she is also the first to reap\n the full harvest of destruction. Her lowland neighbors of Maryland and\n the Carolinas were not far behind at the _seeding_; nor are they far\n behind at the ingathering of desolation.\n\n Let us take the rich and beautiful State of Kentucky, compared with\n her free neighbor Ohio. The slaves of Kentucky have composed less\n than a fourth part of her population. But mark their effect upon the\n comparative growth of the state. In the year 1800, Kentucky contained\n 221,000 inhabitants, and Ohio, 45,000. In forty years, the population\n of Kentucky had risen to 780,000; that of Ohio to 1,519,000. This\n wonderful difference could not be owing to any natural superiority of\n the Ohio country. Kentucky is nearly as large, nearly as fertile, and\n quite equal, in other gifts of nature. She had greatly the advantage,\n too, in the outset of this forty years\u2019 race of population. She\n started with 5\u00b9\u2044\u2082 inhabitants to the square mile, and came out with\n 20: Ohio started with one inhabitant to the square mile, and came\n out with 38. Kentucky had full possession of her territory at the\n beginning. Much of Ohio was then, and for a long time afterwards, in\n possession of the Indians. Ohio is by this time considerably more\n than twice as thickly peopled as Kentucky; yet she still gains, both\n by natural increase and by the influx of emigrants; while Kentucky has\n for twenty years been receiving much fewer emigrants than Ohio, and\n multitudes of her citizens have been yearly moving off to newer and\n yet newer countries.\n\n Compare this natural increase with the census returns, and it appears\n that, in the ten years from 1830 to 1840, Virginia lost by emigration\n no fewer than 375,000 of her people, of whom East Virginia lost\n 304,000, and West Virginia 71,000. At this rate Virginia supplies\n the west every ten years with a population equal in number to the\n population of the State of Mississippi in 1840!\n\n Some Virginia politicians, proudly,--yes, _proudly_,\n fellow-citizens,--call our old commonwealth _The Mother of States_!\n These _enlightened_ patriots might pay her a still higher compliment,\n by calling her _The Grandmother_ of States. For our part, we are\n grieved and mortified to think of the lean and haggard condition of\n our venerable mother. Her black children have sucked her so dry, that\n now, for a long time past, she has not milk enough for her offspring,\n either black or white.\n\n She has sent,--or we should rather say, she has driven,--from her\n soil at least one third of all the emigrants who have gone from the\n old states to the new. More than another third have gone from the\n other old slave states. Many of these multitudes, who have left the\n slave states, have shunned the regions of slavery, and settled in\n the free countries of the west. These were generally industrious and\n enterprising white men, who found, by sad experience, that a country\n of slaves was not the country for them. It is a truth, a certain\n truth, that _slavery drives free laborers,--farmers, mechanics, and\n all, and some of the best of them too,--out of the country, and fills\n their places with negroes_.\n\n It is admitted on all hands, that slave labor is better adapted to\n agriculture than to any other branch of industry; and that, if not\n good for agriculture, it is really good for nothing.\n\n Therefore, since in agriculture slave labor is proved to be far less\n productive than free labor, _slavery is demonstrated to be not only\n unprofitable, but deeply injurious to the public prosperity_.\n\n We do not mean that slave labor can never earn any thing for him that\n employs it. The question is between free labor and slave labor. He\n that chooses to employ a sort of labor that yields only half as much\n to the hand as another sort would yield, makes a choice that is not\n only unprofitable, but deeply injurious to his interest.\n\n Agriculture in the slave states may be characterized in general by\n two epithets, _extensive_, _exhaustive_,--which in all agricultural\n countries forebode two things, _impoverishment_, _depopulation_. The\n general system of slaveholding farmers and planters, in all times and\n places, has been, and now is, and ever will be, to cultivate much\n land, badly, for present gain,--in short, to kill the goose that lays\n the golden egg. They cannot do otherwise with laborers who work by\n compulsion, for the benefit only of their masters, and whose sole\n interest in the matter is to do as little and to consume as much as\n possible.\n\n This ruinous system of large farms cultivated by slaves showed its\n effects in Italy, eighteen hundred years ago, when the Roman empire\n was at the height of its grandeur.\n\n Pliny, a writer of that age, in his Natural History, (Book 18, c.\n 1-7,) tells us, that while the small farms of former times were\n cultivated by freemen, and even great commanders did not disdain to\n labor with their own hands, agriculture flourished, and provisions\n were abundant; but that afterwards, when the lands were engrossed by a\n few great proprietors, and cultivated by fettered and branded slaves,\n the country was ruined, and corn had to be imported. The same system\n was spreading ruin over the provinces, and thus the prosperity of\n the empire was undermined. Pliny denounces, as the worst of all, the\n system of having large estates in the country cultivated by slaves,\n or indeed, says he, \u201c_to have any thing done by men who labor without\n hope of reward_.\u201d\n\n So Livy, the great Roman historian, observed, some years before\n Pliny, (Book 6, c. 12,) that \u201cinnumerable multitudes of men formerly\n inhabited those parts of Italy, where, in his time, none but slaves\n redeemed the country from desertion;\u201d--that is, a dense population of\n free laborers had been succeeded by a sparse population of slaves.\n\n Even the common mechanical trades do not flourish in a slave state.\n Some mechanical operations must, indeed, be performed in every\n civilized country; but the general rule in the south is, to import\n from abroad every fabricated thing that can be carried in ships,\n such as household furniture, boats, boards, laths, carts, ploughs,\n axes, and axehelves, besides innumerable other things, which free\n communities are accustomed to make for themselves. What is most\n wonderful is, that the forests and iron mines of the south supply,\n in great part, the materials out of which these things are made. The\n northern freemen come with their ships, carry home the timber and\n pig iron, work them up, supply their own wants with a part, and then\n sell the rest at a good profit in the southern markets. Now, although\n mechanics, by setting up their shops in the south, could save all\n these freights and profits, yet so it is, that northern mechanics will\n not settle in the south, and the southern mechanics are undersold by\n their northern competitors.\n\n Now connect with these wonderful facts another fact, and the mystery\n is solved. The number of mechanics, in different parts of the south,\n is in the inverse ratio of the number of slaves; or in other words,\n where the slaves form the largest proportion of the inhabitants,\n there the mechanics and manufacturers form the least. In those parts\n only where the slaves are comparatively few, are many mechanics and\n artificers to be found; but even in these parts they do not flourish\n as the same useful class of men flourish in the free states. Even in\n our Valley of Virginia, remote from the sea, many of our mechanics can\n hardly stand against northern competition. This can be attributed only\n to slavery, which paralyzes our energies, disperses our population,\n and keeps us few and poor, in spite of the bountiful gifts of nature\n with which a benign Providence has endowed our country.\n\n Of all the states in this Union, not one has on the whole such various\n and abundant resources for manufacturing as our own Virginia, both\n East and West. Only think of her vast forests of timber, her mountains\n of iron, her regions of stone coal, her valleys of limestone and\n marble, her fountains of salt, her immense sheep-walks for wool, her\n vicinity to the cotton fields, her innumerable waterfalls, her bays,\n harbors, and rivers for circulating products on every side;--in short,\n every material and every convenience necessary for manufacturing\n industry.\n\n Above all, think of Richmond, nature\u2019s chosen site for the greatest\n manufacturing city in America,--her beds of coal and iron, just\n at hand, her incomparable water power, her tide-water navigation,\n conducting sea vessels from the foot of her falls, and above them\n her fine canal to the mountains, through which lie the shortest\n routes from the eastern tides to the great rivers of the west and\n the south-west. Think, also, that this Richmond, in old Virginia,\n \u201cthe mother of states,\u201d has enjoyed these unparalleled advantages\n ever since the United States became a nation;--and then think again,\n that this same Richmond, the metropolis of all Virginia, has fewer\n manufactures than a third-rate New England town;--fewer,--not than\n the new city of Lowell, which is beyond all comparison,--but fewer\n than the obscure place called Fall River, among the barren hills of\n Massachusetts;--and then, fellow-citizens, what will you think,--what\n _must_ you think,--of the cause of this strange phenomenon? Or, to\n enlarge the scope of the question: What must you think has caused\n Virginians in general to neglect their superlative advantages for\n manufacturing industry?--to disregard the evident suggestions of\n nature, pointing out to them this fruitful source of population,\n wealth, and comfort?\n\n Say not that this state of things is chargeable to the _apathy_ of\n Virginians. That is nothing to the purpose, for it does not go to the\n bottom of the subject. What causes the apathy? That is the question.\n\n The last census gave also the cost of constructing new buildings in\n each state, exclusive of the value of the materials. The amount of\n this is a good test of the increase of wealth in a country. To compare\n different states in this particular, we must divide the total cost of\n building by the number of inhabitants, and see what the average will\n be for each inhabitant. We find that it is in Massachusetts, $3\u00b760;\n in Connecticut, $3\u00b750; in New York, $3\u00b700; in New Jersey, $2\u00b770; in\n Pennsylvania, $3\u00b710; in Maryland, $2\u00b730; and in Virginia, $1\u00b710.\n\n No state has greater conveniences for ship navigation and ship\n building than Virginia. Yet on all her fine tide waters she has little\n shipping; and what she has is composed almost wholly of small bay\n craft and a few coasting schooners.\n\n We do not blame our southern people for abstaining from all\n employments of this kind. What could they do? Set their negroes\n to building ships? Who ever imagined such an absurdity? But could\n they not hire white men to do such things? No; for, in the first\n place, southern white men have no skill in such matters; and, in the\n second place, northern workmen cannot be hired in the south, without\n receiving a heavy premium for working in a slave state.\n\n The boast of our West Virginia is the good city of Wheeling. Would\n that she was six times as large, that she might equal Pittsburg, and\n that she grew five times as fast, that she might keep up with her!\n\n We glory in Wheeling, because she only, in Virginia, deserves to be\n called a manufacturing town. For this her citizens deserve to be\n crowned,--not with laurel,--but with the solid gold of prosperity. But\n how came it that Wheeling, and next to her, Wellsburg,--of all the\n towns in Virginia,--should become manufacturing towns? Answer: They\n breathe the atmosphere of free states, almost touching them on both\n sides. But again; seeing that Wheeling, as a seat for manufactures,\n is equal to Pittsburg, and inferior to no town in America, except\n Richmond; and that, moreover, she has almost no slaves; why is\n Wheeling so far behind Pittsburg, and comparatively so slow in her\n growth? Answer: She is in a country in which slavery is established by\n law.\n\n We shall explain, by examples, how a few slaves in a country may do\n its citizens more immediate injury than a large number.\n\n When a white family own fifty or one hundred slaves, they can, so long\n as their land produces well, afford to be indolent and expensive in\n their habits; for though each yields only a small profit, yet each\n member of the family has ten or fifteen of these black work-animals\n to toil for his support. It is not until the fields grow old, and the\n crops grow short, and the negroes and the overseer take nearly all,\n that the day of ruin can be no longer postponed. If the family be not\n _very_ indolent and _very_ expensive, this inevitable day may not come\n before the third generation. But the ruin of small slaveholders is\n often accomplished in a single lifetime.\n\n When a white family own five or ten slaves, they cannot afford to\n be indolent and expensive in their habits; for one black drudge\n cannot support one white gentleman or lady. Yet, because they are\n slaveholders, this family will feel some aspirations for a life of\n easy gentility; and because field work and kitchen work are negroes\u2019\n work, the young gentlemen will dislike to go with the negroes to\n dirty field work, and the young ladies will dislike to join the black\n sluts in any sort of household labor. Such unthrifty sentiments are\n the natural consequence of introducing slaves among the families\n of a country, especially negro slaves. They infallibly grow and\n spread, creating among the white families a distaste for all servile\n labor, and a desire to procure slaves who may take all drudgery off\n their hands. Thus general industry gives way by degrees to indolent\n relaxation, false notions of dignity and refinement, and a taste for\n fashionable luxuries. Then debts slyly accumulate. The result is, that\n many families are compelled by their embarrassments to sell off and\n leave the country. Many who are unable to buy slaves leave it also,\n because they feel degraded, and cannot prosper, where slavery exists.\n Citizens of the valley! is it not so? Is not this the chief reason why\n your beautiful country does not prosper like the northern valleys?\n\n We have examined the census of counties for the last thirty or forty\n years, in Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina, with the view to\n discover the law of population in the northern slave states. The\n following are among the general results:--\n\n When a county had at first comparatively few slaves, the slave\n population, except near the free borders, gained upon the whites, and\n most rapidly in the older parts of the country.\n\n The population, as a whole, increased so long as the slaves were\n fewer than the whites, but more slowly as the numbers approached to\n equality. In our valley, a smaller proportion of slaves had the effect\n of a larger one in East Virginia, to retard the increase of population.\n\n When the slaves became as numerous as the whites in the eastern\n and older parts of the country, population came to a stand; when\n they outnumbered the whites, it declined. Consequently, the slave\n population has tended to diffuse itself equally over the country,\n rising more rapidly as it was further below the white population, and\n going down when it had risen above them.\n\n The price of cotton has regulated the price of negroes in Virginia;\n and so it must continue to do; because slave labor is unprofitable\n here, and nothing keeps up the price of slaves but their value as a\n marketable commodity in the south. Eastern negroes and western cattle\n are alike in this, that, if the market abroad go down or be closed,\n both sorts of animals, the horned and the woolly-headed, become\n a worthless drug at home. The fact is, that our eastern brethren\n must send off, on any terms, the increase of their slaves, because\n their impoverished country cannot sustain even its present stock of\n negroes. We join not the English and American abolition cry about\n \u201cslave-breeding\u201d in East Virginia, as if it were a chosen occupation,\n and therefore a reproachful one. It is no such thing, but a case of\n dire necessity, and many a heartache does it cost the good people\n there. But behold in the east the doleful consequences of letting\n slavery grow up to an oppressive and heart-sickening burden upon a\n community! Cast it off, West Virginians, whilst yet you have the\n power; for if you let it descend unbroken to your children, it will\n have grown to a mountain of misery upon their heads.\n\n Good policy will require the Southern States, ere long, to close their\n markets against northern negroes. When the southern slave market is\n closed, or when, by the reduced profits of slave labor in the south,\n it becomes glutted,--then the stream of Virginia negroes, heretofore\n pouring down upon the south, will be thrown back upon the state, and,\n like a river dammed up, must spread itself over the whole territory\n of the commonwealth. The head spring in East Virginia cannot contain\n itself; it must find vent; it will shed its black streams through\n every gap of the Blue Ridge and pour over the Alleghany, till it is\n checked by abolitionism on the borders. But even abolitionism cannot\n finally stop it. Abolitionism itself will tolerate slavery, when\n slaveholders grow sick and tired of it.\n\n In plain terms, fellow-citizens, eastern slaveholders will come with\n their multitudes of slaves to settle upon the fresh lands of West\n Virginia. Eastern slaves will be sent by thousands for a market in\n West Virginia. Every valley will echo with the cry, \u201cNegroes! Negroes\n for sale! Dog cheap! Dog cheap!\u201d And because they are dog cheap, many\n of our people will buy them. We have shown how slavery has prepared\n the people for this; how a little slavery makes way for more, and\n how the law of slave increase operates to fill up every part of the\n country to the same level with slaves.\n\n And then, fellow-citizens, when you have suffered your country to be\n filled with negro slaves instead of white freemen; when its population\n shall be as motley as Joseph\u2019s coat of many colors; as ring-streaked\n and speckled as father Jacob\u2019s flock was in Padan Aram,--what will the\n white basis of representation avail you, if you obtain it? Whether\n you obtain it or not, East Virginia will have triumphed; or, rather,\n _slavery_ will have triumphed, and all Virginia will have become a\n land of darkness and of the shadow of death.\n\n Then, by a forbearance which has no merit, and a supineness which\n has no excuse, you will have given to your children, for their\n inheritance, this lovely land blackened with a negro population,--the\n offscourings of Eastern Virginia, the fag-end of slavery, the\n loathsome dregs of that cup of abomination which has already sickened\n to death the eastern half of our commonwealth.\n\n Delay, not, then, we beseech you, to raise a barrier against this\n Stygian inundation, to stand at the Blue Ridge, and with sovereign\n energy say to this Black Sea of misery, \u201cHitherto shalt thou come, and\n no farther.\u201d\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] Mr. Madison thought the original ordinance to be clearly invalid.\nSee Federalist, No. 38. It is just as clear that he thought the\nconstitution gave validity to it. See Federalist, No. 43.\n\n[2] Here Mr. HILLIARD, of Alabama, rose to ask if the south, by the\nMissouri compromise, had not surrendered its right to carry slavery\nnorth of the compromise line? His question was not understood. If it\nhad been, it would have been replied, that the existence of slavery at\nNew Orleans, and a few other places in Louisiana, at the time of the\ntreaty with France, by no means established the right to carry it to\nthe Pacific Ocean, if the treaty extended so far. Slavery being against\nnatural right, can only exist by virtue of positive law, backed by\nforce sufficient to protect it. It could not lawfully exist, therefore,\nin any part of Louisiana, which had not been laid out, organized, and\nsubjected to the civil jurisdiction of the government. Such was not the\ncase with any part of the territory north of the compromise line, and\ntherefore nothing was surrendered. On the other hand, in the formation\nof the territorial governments of Orleans, Missouri, Arkansas, and\nFlorida, a vast extent of country was surrendered to slavery. And this\nis independent of the question whether Congress, by the constitution,\nhas any more right to establish slavery _any where_ than it has to\nestablish an inquisition, create an order of nobility, or anoint a king.\n\n[3] Essays on Domestic Industry, or an Inquiry into the Expediency of\nestablishing Cotton Manufactories in South Carolina, 1845.\n\n\n\n\n                                SKETCH\n\n OF THE OPENING ARGUMENT IN THE CASE OF THE UNITED STATES _vs._ DANIEL\n DRAYTON, INDICTED, (IN FORTY-ONE SEVERAL BILLS OF INDICTMENT,) FOR\n STEALING AND CARRYING AWAY, IN THE SCHOONER PEARL, A CARGO OF SLAVES\n FROM WASHINGTON, IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ON THE NIGHT OF THE 15TH\n OF APRIL, 1848; TRIED BEFORE THOMAS H. CRAWFORD, JUDGE OF THE CRIMINAL\n COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. P. B. KEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY;\n HORACE MANN AND JAMES M. CARLISLE, COUNSEL FOR THE PRISONER.\n\n\n  GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY;\n\nI rise before you under circumstances rarely exceeded in embarrassment.\nI am an utter stranger to his honor, the judge, and to all of you,\ngentlemen, who compose the jury. Among all the eager faces in this\ncrowded hall, there is not one with which I am familiar. I suppose\nthere is not one man in this vast assembly who has any sympathy for my\nclient or for me.\n\nThe case before us is acknowledged, on all sides, to be one of\ngreat moment. It directly affects human interests,--large pecuniary\ninterests,--and these are among the most active and powerful of human\nimpulses. It is a case which has given birth to great excitement. It\nhas been narrated with formidable exaggerations in the public papers;\nit has been angrily discussed in both houses of Congress, and bruited\nover the land. From what has transpired in and about this court room,\nsince the trial commenced, I perceive that each individual seems not\nonly to be convinced that the prisoner at the bar has committed a great\noffence, but, like a light reflected from a multiplying glass, he sees\nthat offence multiplied a thousand fold in the opinions and feelings\nof those around him. I cannot forbear to add, that it is a case, also,\nwhich, in some of its aspects, touches the deepest and tenderest\nsympathies of the human heart; for this prosecution not only deals with\nhuman beings as offenders, but with human beings and human rights, as\nthe subject matters of the offence.\n\nWe have been called to trial, too, at an untimely hour. I have not had\ntime for the preparation and investigation which so important a case\ndemands. Added to this, my colleague, [Mr. CARLISLE,] was taken ill on\nthe day he was retained, and, until the evening immediately preceding\nthe commencement of the trial, I had no opportunity for a single\ninterview with him, and then but for an hour, in his sick chamber.\nDuring all this time, too, as some of you may know, my attention has\nbeen called away by official duties elsewhere.\n\nGentlemen, let me come a little closer to my relations to this case and\nto yourselves. I stand here, on this side of the table; you sit there,\non the other side. Our _persons_ are near to each other; but should\nI not greatly deceive myself, were I to suppose that our _opinions_\nwere as near together as our persons? We are within shaking-hands\u2019\ndistance of each other; still, our convictions and sentiments on\ncertain subjects may be wide asunder as the poles. On a subject of\nvast importance and gravity,--a subject reflected from every feature\nof this case,--I was born, and from my birth have been trained up, in\none set of ideas; and I mean no discourtesy when I say that you have\nbeen born and trained in another set of ideas. Hence it is natural,\nyes, it is inevitable,--is it not?--that we should approach this\nsubject with widely different views, and, as it were, from opposite\npoints of the moral compass. I am admonished, then, in the outset,\nthat your prepossessions are against me. The frame of your minds must\nbe adverse to the reception of my views. We are in a position where\nthe hearer, consciously or unconsciously, braces himself against the\npressure of the speaker\u2019s arguments. And of all difficult positions in\nwhich advocate or orator was ever placed, the most difficult is that of\nencountering the honest antipathies of his hearers. The heart, secure\nin its own convictions, closes itself against the argument that would\noverthrow them, as a fond parent bars his doors against the foe that\nwould carry away his children.\n\nBut, gentlemen, amid all these adverse circumstances, and amid these\nconflicts of hostile and perhaps irreconcilable feelings, is there not\nsome common ground on which you and I can stand together, and greet\neach other as brethren? Is there not one spot where we can stand side\nby side, as friends, sympathize with each other, and act together in\nharmony? Yes, gentlemen, there _is_ one such spot. _It is the ground\nof_ DUTY. In this case, I have certain duties to perform; you, too,\nhave certain duties to perform; and the feeling of a common duty is\nalways creative of the feeling of brotherhood. We are called to these\nduties as by the voice of God; we are to perform them as under the eye\nof the Omniscient. Here we are embarked in a common cause. From this\nmoment, then, let all feelings of alienation or repugnance be banished\nfrom between us.\n\nGentlemen, this prisoner has requested me to be his counsel; and I,\nperhaps unwisely, have acceded to his request. I have taken an oath\nto be true to him. This has imposed certain responsibilities upon me,\nwhich, before Heaven, I may not escape. In this I find my strength.\nWith the fierce excitement, which blazed forth in this District when\nthe prisoners of the \u201cPearl\u201d were first arrested, still hot around me;\nwith the generally adverse feelings which I suppose you entertain\ntowards the side of the cause which I have espoused, and therefore\nagainst its advocate; with these thronged spectators, who show, at\nevery turn and incident of the trial, what their feelings are towards\nthe prisoner and his defenders, I should not be able to stand here one\nmoment, were it not for the supporting, uplifting sentiment, glowing\nthrough every fibre of my frame, that I am here in the performance of a\nhigh and holy duty. In all else I may be weak; in this I am strong.[4]\n\nSo you, gentlemen, sit there to perform a duty. Swearing upon the Holy\nEvangelists, you have invoked the vengeance of Heaven upon your souls,\nif, consciously and wittingly, you swerve a hair\u2019s breadth from the\nline of rectitude; if you allow any partiality in favor of a cherished\ninstitution, or any prejudice against the prisoner, to close your eyes\nor blind your minds to any fact of evidence or rule of law which may be\nadduced in his behalf.\n\nI might even add a consideration of a lighter nature leading to the\nsame result. Your fortune and mine, for some days to come, I suppose\nto be settled. I know not how protracted this trial may be, but,\ngentlemen, we are in it, for longer or shorter, for better or worse;\nand while we are in it, we shall be obliged to come together from day\nto day, and live in each other\u2019s presence and company. Now, I trust\nyou have too much philosophy about you to make bad worse. And so of\nmyself. Were we fellow-travellers in the same stage-coach or steamboat,\nand were doomed to be so for a week or a fortnight, it would be most\nunwise to add to our inevitable discomforts that of striving to annoy\neach other; so, when packed together in this room, which seems to have\nbeen constructed for creatures that do not breathe, and with the\nthermometer above ninety degrees, I trust any icy feelings we may have\nhad towards each other will speedily melt away. In a word, I heartily\nconcur, and I trust you will do the same, in the opinion of the old man\nwho declared, according to the anecdote, that after the experience of a\nlong life, he had found it best to submit to what he could not possibly\nhelp.\n\nWhat, then, is the business before us? Daniel Drayton is set here\nat the bar charged with a grave offence, and you are impanelled to\ntry him. And who is Daniel Drayton? We shall prove to you that he is\na man of sober and industrious life, against whose character, as a\njust, upright, exemplary citizen, no charge was ever before preferred.\nWhatever may have been his errors in regard to the transaction which\nhas brought him before you, he has, in consequence of it, passed\nthrough scenes which must move your sympathy. He has been torn from\nhis family and immured in a loathsome cell. From feeling that sense\nof security from lawless violence, which every man, whether guilty or\ninnocent, is entitled to feel, he has been in imminent danger of being\ntorn in pieces by an infuriated mob. Yes, gentlemen, on Tuesday, the\neighteenth day of April last, this man, this fellow-citizen of ours,\nin this capital of the nation, within sight of Congress, and of the\nPresident\u2019s house, and within hearing of them, too, was pursued by a\nmob, from near the river\u2019s side on the south of us to the very doors of\nthe jail on the north,--a mob estimated to consist of from four to six\nthousand people,--many of them armed with deadly weapons; the thrusts\nof a dirk knife, which was drawn upon him, coming within an inch of\nhis body; amid wrathful cries of \u201cHang him!\u201d \u201cLynch him!\u201d accompanied\nby all the profanities and abominations of speech which usually issue\nfrom the foul throat of that hideous monster--A MOB. Arrived at the\njail, the mob besieged him there. When afterwards, and while under\nexamination before magistrates of the city, a distinguished gentleman\nand member of Congress, [the Hon. Joshua R. Giddings, of Ohio,]\nappeared at his request and in his defence, the mob surrounded the\ngates of the jail, demanding the immediate expulsion of the counsel;\nand the jailer, to save bloodshed, insisted upon his departure. The\nstorm swept beyond the prison and the prisoner. It assailed all who\nwere supposed to sympathize with him. The office of a newspaper in this\ncity, (the National Era,) was threatened with demolition. At a mob\nmeeting, votes were passed,--without any great scrutiny, I presume,\ninto the qualifications of the voters,--that the paper should be\ndiscontinued. Its editor was waited upon at night, or at midnight, by\na mob-elected committee, and a peremptory demand was made upon him to\nremove his establishment beyond the District, or to abandon it.\n\nBut I will not dwell longer upon these details, so disgraceful to the\ncapital of a republic that calls itself _free_, and so abhorrent to\nthe feelings of every right-minded man. Were I to enumerate all the\nperils, the indignities, and the privations to which my client has been\nsubjected, the day would be too short for the narration.\n\nAfter Drayton\u2019s examination, he was held to bail. And what, think\nyou, was the amount of the bail demanded? Seventy-six thousand\ndollars! and seventy-six thousand dollars also for each of the other\nprisoners,--$228,000 for the seventy-six alleged slaves, when the\ncommon market value of such slaves in this neighborhood would not, I\nsuppose, be more than three or four hundred dollars apiece;--and though\nall of them, too, had been returned, and were in possession of their\nclaimants at the time. Has the fact never yet come to the knowledge of\nthe magistrates of the District of Columbia, that the constitution of\nthe United States declares that \u201cexcessive bail shall not be required\u201d?\n\nBut, gentlemen, these are not the only hardships and oppressions to\nwhich my client has been subjected. How many, at the most, are the\noffences against the laws of this District which he has committed? He\ncame here on the 13th of April, in the schooner Pearl. He departed\non the 15th. On the 17th, he was arrested near the mouth of the\nPotomac, with a company of alleged slaves on board his vessel. Was\nnot this all one transaction? Can it be divided and separated into a\nmultitude of distinct offences? Can this one deed be made an offence\nagainst different laws? If not, then there is another clause in the\nconstitution set at nought,--that clause which declares that no person\nshall be \u201csubject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of\nlife or limb.\u201d\n\nAnd yet, gentlemen, what do we find on the records of this court? One\nhundred and fifteen indictments against this prisoner for this one\nact; and one hundred and fifteen indictments also against each of the\nother prisoners for engaging in the same. Three hundred and forty-five\nindictments! Reams of indictments for a single deed! Nor is this the\nonly injustice. Each of the prisoners is indicted for having violated,\nby this one act, separate and distinct laws. There is an old law of\nMaryland against stealing slaves, and another law against transporting\nthem out of the jurisdiction; and these laws are claimed, by virtue\nof an act of Congress, to be in force in this District. Now, if the\nprisoner stole the slaves, he is not guilty of the separate offence\nof transporting. If he is guilty of transporting, he is not guilty\nof stealing. That the two offences should have been committed by one\nand the same act, is a legal impossibility. If the grand jury first\nfound the prisoner guilty of the offence of stealing the slaves, they\nthereby declared that he was not guilty of the different offence of\ntransporting. Or, if they first found him guilty of the offence of\ntransporting, they thereby declared that he was not guilty of the\nseparate offence of stealing. To proceed, therefore, after a finding\nfor one offence, to charge the prisoner with the other, was not only a\nlegal absurdity, but a grievous injustice.\n\nBesides, if these slaves were stolen, as is alleged, from forty-one\ndifferent masters, the whole might have been charged in different\ncounts in the same indictment, and the prisoner might be found guilty\nupon as many of the counts as law and evidence would warrant.\n\nSo there was but one act of transportation. Even, therefore, if it were\njust to charge the prisoner with the breach of two different laws for\nthe same act, still, as the transportation of the whole was but one, it\nshould have been charged only in one indictment.\n\nSee how fatal to any man must such a course of proceeding be. If the\nstealing were charged in one indictment, it would be tried by one jury;\nand the evidence being to a great degree the same, the whole trial\nmight be brought within a limited period of time. But with forty-one\nindictments, there must be forty-one trials, before forty-one different\njuries; for neither government nor prisoner would consent that a\njury, who had given an adverse verdict, should try another of the\ncases. Now, gentlemen, I care not for the enormous expense of such a\nproceeding,--ten dollars on each indictment, enuring to the benefit of\nthe district attorney,--\n\nHere Mr. KEY, the district attorney, interrupted and said: If Mr. Mann\nthinks I am to have ten dollars on each of these indictments, he is\nmistaken; and in my argument to the jury I shall deny it.\n\nMr. CARLISLE. Mr. Mann is not mistaken in the general statement, that\nthe district attorney receives ten dollars on each indictment. He\nreceives ten dollars on each, until the income of his office amounts\nto six thousand dollars a year. It is only when the emoluments of the\noffice reach that sum that he ceases to draw his ten dollars on each\nindictment.\n\nMr. MANN. I was saying, gentlemen, that I care comparatively nothing\nfor the amount of expense incurred in consequence of these three\nhundred and forty-five indictments. Far graver consequences than the\nmere expenditure of money are involved. Who can maintain or survive\na contest against such a host of indictments, sustained by all the\npower and resources of the government? Were a man rich as Cr\u0153sus, it\nwould exhaust his means. Were he brave as a martyr, it would outweary\nhis endurance. Were he innocent as a child unborn, still, on the mere\ndoctrine of chances, he might fail in some one case, out of such a\nmultitude. Were he in the prime of life, its setting sun might go\ndown in darkness and sorrow before the final verdict of acquittal\ncould be pronounced in his favor. Under such a practice with regard\nto indictments, coupled with such a practice in regard to bail, an\naccusation would be as fatal as crime itself, however innocent the\naccused might be. The law provides a statute of limitations as to\noffences. Could it have foreseen such an abuse as this, it would have\nprovided a statute of limitations against the number of prosecutions\nfor a single offence; for the government might as well try a man, on a\nseparate indictment, for each hair of a horse he had stolen, and hold\nhim, on each of them, to separate bail. The English courts, gentlemen,\nhave provided a remedy for the beginnings of this injustice. They have\ndecided, again and again, that when even two indictments are found\nagainst a man for the same offence, they will compel the prosecutor\nto make his election between them,--to proceed upon one and abandon\nthe other. 2 Leach\u2019s Cr. Cas., 608, _Rex_ vs. _Doran_. 3 Carr. & P.\n412, _Rex_ vs. _Smith_. Ib. _Rex_ vs. _Flower_, 413. 3 T. R. _Young_\nvs. _The King_, (_in error_,) 106. See, also, in support of the same\nprinciple, New York Revised Statutes, vol. 2, part 4, ch. 2, \u00a7 42,\nwhere provision is made that \u201cif there be at any time pending against\nthe same defendant two or more indictments for the same offence, or\ntwo indictments for the same matter, although charged as different\noffences, the indictment first found shall be deemed to be superseded\nby such second indictment, and shall be quashed.\u201d\n\nBut, gentlemen, there is another aspect of this case, which presents,\nin a manner still more glaring, the enormity of the proceeding to\nwhich we are subjected. Under each of the forty-one indictments\nagainst this prisoner for stealing, he is liable, if convicted, to be\nsentenced to twenty years\u2019 imprisonment, which would make an aggregate\nimprisonment of more than eight hundred years. Methuselah himself must\nhave been caught young, in order to survive such a sentence. The very\nshortest time which the court, in its discretion, could imprison,\nafter a conviction on all these indictments, would be two hundred\nand eighty-seven years! Did the law ever contemplate so cruel and\nrevengeful a proceeding? Did the law ever suppose that the court, after\nhaving sentenced a man to eight hundred years\u2019 imprisonment, or even to\ntwo hundred and eighty years\u2019 imprisonment, should go on, and sentence\nhim to twenty years, or even to seven years more?--when the court must\nknow that it would be imposing sentences to be executed centuries after\nthe prisoner would be dead, and after he would have left his prison,\nnot to return to this world, but to go to another.\n\nBut even this is not all. Behind these forty-one indictments for\nstealing stand drawn up, in battle array, against this same prisoner,\nseventy-four other indictments for transporting the very slaves whom\nhe is charged to have stolen. The penalty for each of these offences\nis a fine of two hundred dollars, with imprisonment till paid. The\naggregate of these fines would be $14,800. But a penalty not inflicted\nby the statute, but superadded by this unwarrantable proceeding of the\ngovernment, is the defence of seventy-four successive cases, under\nwhich the wealthiest, the strongest, and the most innocent man must\nbreak down, and be swept to ruin.\n\nCorresponding with the oppressive character of all these preliminaries\nwas the manner of the prosecutor, in his opening argument. He has\nseen fit to use language against the prisoner the most vehement and\ndenunciatory. He has imputed to him every base motive that can actuate\na depraved heart, and showered upon him the coarsest epithets that\ncan describe a villain. Now if it shall turn out that my client is\ninnocent, then all these criminations are unjust and cruel; and even\nshould it be proved that he is guilty, it is no part of his punishment\nto be compelled to sit here in enforced silence, hour after hour, and\nhear himself denounced and vilified in language as unfitted to his\ncharacter as to the sobriety of judicial proceedings.\n\nGentlemen, the representative of the government, like the government\nitself, should be dispassionate and calm. Majesty is one of the\nattributes of sovereignty, and serenity is inseparable from\nmajesty. The government is not a being of wrath, of ferocity, of\nvindictiveness; and the exhibition of such passions is as unsuitable\nto the representative of the government as to the government itself.\nThough the image of justice may be represented as holding the sword\nof power in one hand, yet she is also represented as holding the\nbalance of equity in the other; but when the government assumes the\nguilt of the prisoner, before it has been found, and denounces him in\nbitterest epithets as criminal, while as yet the law presumes him to\nbe innocent,--the only proper emblem of such a government is an image\nwhich, a few years ago, might have been seen surmounting the dome of\nthe court house in Taunton, in the county of Somersetshire, in England,\nto which the artist had originally given both the balance and the\nsword; but a storm, careering through the sky, had swept the balance\naway, so that nothing but the avenging sword was left; and there the\nhateful figure stood aloft, an image of wrath untempered by equity.\n\nBut, gentlemen, let me trust that the prisoner has at length escaped\nfrom the turbulent and perilous scenes which have hitherto destroyed\nhis peace and threatened his life. Let me trust that the fell spirits\nwhich prompted the proposal, made by one of his captors while he\nwas yet on board the steamboat, and previous to his return to this\ncity, that he should be brought up and hung at the yard-arm,--as was\ntestified to by the government\u2019s witnesses,--is at length exorcised;\nlet me trust that the demoniac cry of vengeance which was shouted by\nthe mob, and the thirst for blood which their conduct betokened, while\nthe prisoner, bound and defenceless, was conducted from the river to\nthe jail, has found no welcoming response in your bosoms. Let me trust,\nalso, that the violence of manner and the bitterness of language which\nhave been so freely employed in the opening of this case, have not\ndisturbed the balance of your minds, or so ruffled their serenity that\nthe images of truth shall be distorted as they are reflected from them.\n\nGentlemen, the spot on which a jury are seated should be a place\nseparate and apart from the rest of the world; sacred, and inaccessible\nto the passions and prejudices that move the community without. It\nshould be a place consecrated to the inquiry, \u201cWhat is truth?\u201d and to\nthe application of its conclusions to the conduct of men. When you\ntook your seats in that place, you were severally asked by the court\nwhether you had formed any opinion respecting the guilt or innocence\nof the prisoner, and you severally answered in the negative. The final\nopinion, then, which shall be expressed in your verdict, must be an\nopinion which you have formed _since_ that time, and from the law\nand testimony here introduced. Into that opinion, no other element\nmust be allowed to enter. The prejudged guilt of the prisoner, as\nmanifested by repeated attempts to take his life; the demand which may\nexist, and which I suppose does exist, out of doors, that he shall be\nconvicted, innocent or guilty; the anticipation that you are to meet\nan angry community, if you acquit him;--all these considerations, if\nthey obtrude upon your minds, must be sternly rebuked and banished.\nThe record of your verdict will survive these temporary excitements.\nIt should be a verdict, therefore, which you can look upon, at the\nclose of life, with conscientious satisfaction. It must be one which\nyour children can look at with a filial and honorable regard for their\nfathers\u2019 uprightness. In a case which has excited so much attention,\nboth here and throughout the country, you, too, must expect to be put\non trial; your verdict will go into the great record of history, to be\npassed upon by your country and by posterity.\n\nOnce, gentlemen, in the state to which I belong, a case arose\nin which the deepest and holiest feelings of the community were\nintensely excited. One of the preludes to the great drama of the\nAmerican revolution was the slaughtering, in the year 1770, of five\nAmerican citizens, in the streets of Boston, by the British soldiery.\nThe supposed offenders were brought to trial for the homicide.\nThey were defended by John Adams and Josiah Quincy,--illustrious\nnames! The public breast throbbed with excitement. The sight of\nbutchered countrymen made the blood seethe in the hearts of their\nfellow-citizens. If there ever could be a case where the law might be\nwrested to meet the popular outcry for redress; if there ever could be\na case where the evidence might be strained and distorted to bring the\nfacts within strained and distorted law, so as to visit a high outrage\nwith a moral, if not a legal penalty, the \u201cBoston Massacre\u201d of 1770\nsupplied all its conditions. That cause was tried, and the prisoners\nwere acquitted. The storm of popular disaffection soon cleared away,\nand now twelve purer and fairer names are not inscribed on the roll of\nfame than the names of those twelve jurymen, who dared to brave public\nopinion, and to perform an act of arduous, if not of perilous justice.\nNoble and illustrious bravery of the soul, which, when the yelling\nfiends of popular passion and prejudice beset the ascending pathway\nof virtue, can look to conscience, to posterity, and to God, and defy\nthem all! Follow their example, gentlemen, and, whatever fierce sounds\nof public condemnation may be now rung in your ears, you will have the\nsame glorious reward, and your children, and all the good men of your\ncountry, will honor your memories.\n\nGentlemen, in the vehement appeals which were made to you by the\ngovernment\u2019s counsel, for the condemnation of the prisoner, you were\ntold that he had \u201cinvaded this District, and ruthlessly carried away\nmore than a hundred thousand dollars\u2019 worth of its property;\u201d and you\nwere warned that, if you let such a man escape, you might as well\nabandon at once all property in slaves. But it so happens, gentlemen,\nthat you are sworn to try this prisoner for stealing John and Sam, two\nslaves of one Andrew Hoover, of the alleged value of fourteen hundred\ndollars only. Is each of these forty-one cases against the prisoner\nto be inflamed and exasperated by charging him with plundering the\nDistrict to the amount of more than a hundred thousand dollars? A\npretty strong effort of fancy, is it not? to work up the fourteen\nhundred dollars of the indictment into more than four millions in the\nargument! Is this to be another of the oppressive consequences of\nmultiplying the one alleged offence of the prisoner into forty-one\nseparate offences? Is the government\u2019s counsel to botch up any sort\nof nefarious charge against the prisoner, and then call upon you to\nfind him guilty on these strained and overwrought exaggerations of his\nconduct? No, gentlemen! This would be to suppose that you sit there\nto administer the worst kind of Lynch law,--a kind that has all its\ninjustice, while screening itself from the odium of its violence. The\nobject of civil society is to protect rights and to redress wrongs.\nFor these great purposes laws are enacted, courts are established,\njuries are instituted, and rules of evidence are framed. Without civil\nsociety, each man would have a right to preserve his own rights and to\nredress his own wrongs. Civil society takes away something from a man\u2019s\nrights, but it adds immensely to his powers; it makes him stronger than\nany individual oppressor, and, on the whole, it protects its members\nfar better than they could protect themselves. But civil society, like\nevery thing human, is imperfect. Once out of ten times, or once out\nof twenty times, it may fail to accomplish the end for which it was\nestablished. The very instruments it has framed may sometimes be the\ncause of its failure. What then? We do but fail in each tenth, or each\ntwentieth case, when, without the social organization, failure might\nhave been the general rule. And, therefore, even if a guilty person\ndoes sometimes escape, all we can say is that civil society has not\ndone its work infallibly. It has done well, though it has not done all.\nBut suppose this very civil society, wielding as it does the combined\nand terrible strength of the whole community, should turn its collected\nforce against an innocent man, and crush him, then in what an utter\nand hopeless ruin is he overwhelmed! How much better for him had\nits powerful machinery never existed, than that he should be ground\nto powder beneath its wheels! Now, such might be the case with every\nprisoner, if juries were to act without strict obedience to law, and\na strict observance of the forms of law. Any appeals, therefore, made\nto you, that because this prisoner may have committed _some_ offence\nagainst law, you are, therefore, to discard all scruples and find him\nguilty of _this_ offence, I regard as treason against justice, as a\nmonstrous perversion of judicial proceedings; yes, as a thousand times\nworse than any guilt of the prisoner, even supposing the distorted\nfeatures of the picture, drawn by the government\u2019s counsel, to be\ngenuine. It would be nothing less than Lynch law, perpetrated by twelve\npicked and sworn men, instead of a mob.\n\nGentlemen, the district attorney in his opening has not deigned to tell\nus on what law he proceeds. He has accused the prisoner of stealing\noften enough, but has read no statute, and referred to no decision,\nwhich creates or describes any such offence. Hence a task which clearly\nbelonged to him is devolved upon me.\n\nAfter the District of Columbia was ceded to the United States, Congress\npassed a general law, adopting the laws of Maryland, for that part of\nthe District which had been ceded by Maryland. This trial, therefore,\nmust proceed upon laws originally passed by Maryland. By the act of\n1737, ch. 2, \u00a7 4, it is provided that any person \u201cwho shall steal\nany negro or other slave,\u201d \u201cor who shall counsel, hire, aid, abet,\nor command any person or persons\u201d to do so, shall suffer death as a\nfelon. The punishment has since been changed to imprisonment in the\nUnited States prison, for a term of not less than seven, nor more than\ntwenty years. [Here comments were made at length on the preamble of\nthe statute, and the class of cases to which the law was intended to\napply.]\n\nThis act was designed to prevent slaves from being _stolen_. But a man\nmight lose a slave without his being stolen. The slave might be enticed\nor persuaded to run away. Experience, doubtless, made the masters aware\nof this. Hence, fourteen years afterwards, by the act of 1751, ch. 14,\n\u00a7 10, it was provided that \u201cif any person shall entice and persuade any\nslave within this province to run away, and who shall actually run away\nfrom the master,\u201d &c., he shall be punished, &c.\n\nBut there was still another way of depriving a master of the service of\nhis slave. Hence the act of 1796, ch. 67, \u00a7 19, made it a separate and\ndistinct offence for any person to be guilty of \u201cthe transporting of\nany slave or person, held to service,\u201d from the state.\n\nNow, here, gentlemen, are four distinct legal provisions, all designed\nto protect slave property. By these provisions, four distinct legal\noffences are created. The law, by creating and defining these offences,\nhas authoritatively declared that one of them is not either of the\nothers of them. \u201cStealing\u201d is one thing. \u201cCounselling, hiring,\u201d &c., a\nman to steal, is not stealing itself. \u201cEnticing and persuading\u201d a slave\nto run away from his master is not stealing. \u201cTransporting\u201d a slave out\nof the jurisdiction is not stealing. The inquiry for you, therefore, is\nwhether the prisoner is guilty of any of these offences, and if of any,\nthen, of which.\n\nNow, gentlemen, let me take advantage of a map which is lying\nhere accidentally before me, to illustrate this case. Four\nstates,--Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina, are\nhere represented. The boundaries between them are distinctly marked.\nPennsylvania is not Maryland, nor either of the others. Maryland is\nnot Virginia, nor either of the others; and so of the rest. Just\nso it is with the offences created by these statutes. Any one of\nthem is not either of the others. It is as plain that the offence\nof \u201ctransporting\u201d a slave out of the jurisdiction is as different\nfrom the offence of stealing a slave, as this geographical shape of\nMaryland is different from this geographical shape of Pennsylvania.\nAs, therefore, if the geographical metes and bounds of the State of\nMaryland were shown to you, you could not say, upon your oaths, that it\nwas a description of the State of Pennsylvania; so, if the offence of\n\u201ctransporting\u201d be proved to you, you cannot say, on your oaths, that it\nis the offence of stealing.\n\nOr take an illustration from other things. The object of a sun-dial,\na watch, a clock, and a chronometer is the same. All are made for the\nmeasurement of time, as all these laws were made for the protection of\nslave property. But could you, therefore, on your oaths, convict a man\nof stealing a chronometer, when he had only taken a clock or a watch?\nNo, you could find him guilty only of the thing proved to have been\ndone.\n\nOr, again, suppose a law should be made to protect a man\u2019s property in\nhis books; and the stealing of books, generally, should be punishable\nby five years\u2019 confinement in the penitentiary. Such a general law\nwould include all books. Suppose a subsequent law should inflict a\nlighter penalty for stealing an octavo volume, and a still lighter one\nfor a duodecimo. Then it would be necessary, in an indictment, to set\nout the kind of book stolen, and no man could be lawfully punished for\nthe weightier offence who had only committed the lighter. So here,\nthe first law punished \u201cstealing,\u201d the next \u201centicing,\u201d and the next\n\u201ctransporting.\u201d\n\nNow, gentlemen, I maintain that, at most, nothing but the offence\nof \u201ctransporting\u201d has been proved against this prisoner. But he\nis arraigned for _stealing_. What then, let us inquire, are the\ningredients which constitute the offence of stealing,--which are\nindispensable to its perpetration? They are, 1. That the property\nshall be taken by the thief from the possession of the owner. 2. That\nit shall be taken into the possession of the thief,--that is, that the\ntaker shall exercise some act of control or ownership over it. And,\n3. That this taking by the thief, from the possession of the owner,\nand into his own possession, shall be for the felonious purpose of\nconverting the said property to his own use.\n\nNow, I think it is not too much to say, that neither one of these three\nindispensable ingredients of larceny has been proved in this case.\n\n1. It is not proved that the prisoner took the two slaves mentioned in\nthe indictment _from the possession_ of Andrew Hoover. Could not some\nother person besides the prisoner have put it into the heads of these\nslaves to leave their master? There are white men in this city hostile\nto the institution of slavery, and desiring the freedom of all slaves.\nCould they not have said to Hoover\u2019s slaves, \u201cHere is a schooner at\nthe wharf; it is to sail at such a time; be there, and you may escape\nto a free state\u201d? Here, too, are thousands of free negroes, or colored\npersons, in this District, with whom the slaves are in daily and open\ncommunication. Could they not have infused into the mind of these\nslaves the idea of liberty? Is it not a thousand times more probable\nthat it was done by some citizen in the District, or by some colored\nacquaintance or friend of theirs, enjoying the means of constant\ncommunication with them, than that it was done by an entire stranger\nto them, as the prisoner was? Can aught be conceived more absurd or\npreposterous than that the prisoner should go round the streets of\nWashington, picking up a slave here and there, to complete his cargo,\nas the driver of a stage-coach goes round picking up passengers? Should\nhe accost a colored man in the streets, and ask him if he were a slave,\nthe chances are three to one that the person addressed would turn out\nto be a freeman; for I suppose the proportion, in this District, of\nthe free colored persons to the slaves to be as great as this. If the\nfourth man or woman he might meet should prove to be a slave, how could\nhe know but what he might be addressing one so attached to the place,\nto his home and relatives, and to his master, that even the sweets of\nfreedom would not tempt him to leave; and that the consequence would\nbe an immediate reporting of the interview, and sudden detection and\npunishment? But a person on the spot would know who were slaves, and\nwhat slaves were discontented with their condition; he could select\nthe occasion when a slave had been punished by his master, when his\nbody was smarting, and his mind was fired with indignation against\nhim, and then sow the seeds of discontent and the hopes of escape in a\nfruitful soil. If, then, the slaves were, in fact, instigated to leave\ntheir master\u2019s possession, the probabilities are a thousand to one that\nthey were so instigated by some other person or persons resident here,\nand not by the prisoner. If this were so, and they came on board the\nprisoner\u2019s schooner, after having absconded from their master, then he\ndid not take them from Hoover\u2019s possession, and so is not guilty of the\nfirst ingredient in the crime of larceny.\n\nBut is there not still another way in which slaves may be induced to\nleave the possession of their master? Though we may call men slaves,\nyet are they not human beings?--degraded from the natural dignity of\nmanhood, it is true, and dwarfed in their mental stature, but still\nhuman beings; subject to the passions of our common nature, animated\nby its hopes, inflamed by its resentments, and shrinking and flying\nthrough fear from the uplifted rod. As human beings, could not the\ndesire of escape from their master\u2019s possession have originated with\nthemselves?--prompted by the inward and instinctive longings for\nliberty, which spring perennial in the human breast.\n\nThe attorney for the government, in his opening, dwelt long and\nearnestly on the value of this species of property. He described it as\nthe most valuable kind of property known in the District, and therefore\nmost vigilantly to be guarded. Doubtless it has a certain pecuniary\nvalue; and, as it increases in intelligence, activity, and skill,\nits value is greatly enhanced. But with this enhanced value comes a\n_per contra_. With increased intelligence and mental development, the\ndesires natural to manhood spring up;--the longing for liberty, and for\nthe possession of free agency; the desire of selecting one\u2019s own field\nof labor, and means of enjoyment; the desire of commanding the rewards\nof one\u2019s own toil. So that, as the value of a slave increases, the\nstrength of the tenure by which he is held becomes less secure. It is a\nweight of gold suspended by a cord. The master wishes to increase the\nmass. He adds little by little, until the weight snaps the cord, and he\nloses the whole.\n\nHoover says he had been offered $1400 for the two slaves mentioned in\nthe indictment, and had refused the offer. Their services were probably\nworth to him a dollar a day each. One of them was employed in driving\na cart about the city. As he saw a handful of money paid to his master\nevery week, or every month, for his own earnings, think you he never\nasked himself, why that money could not be his? When three out of every\nfour colored men whom he met, from day to day, were receiving their\nown earnings, and making those earnings minister to their comforts and\ntheir pleasures, might not Hoover\u2019s slaves have said, \u201cWhy are not our\nearnings our own? and, if we cannot possess them here, why should we\nnot go to a country where the laborer is deemed, in the language of\nScripture, to be worthy of his hire?\u201d and so have fled of their own\naccord? for, though we are prone to apply the precepts of the gospel to\nothers rather than to ourselves, yet this is a passage which they would\nbe likely to take home.\n\nBut this is not all, gentlemen. In this capital of a nation so boastful\nof its freedom, the common air is vocal with the accents of liberty.\nMany of the colored people can read. Who knows but some of them have\nread the Declaration of American Independence; and, _in their blindness\nand simplicity of mind_, applied its immortal truths to themselves?\n\u201cAll men are created equal!\u201d and among their \u201cinalienable rights\u201d \u201care\nlife, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness!\u201d Who knows but that they\nmay have seen these doctrines, with a constellation of names subscribed\nto them as glorious as any that ever shone in history\u2019s firmament? If\nsuch ideas once got possession of a man\u2019s mind, do you think that fire\nor water could ever burn them or drown them out? Those who cannot read,\ncan hear; and if you are to keep from them the perpetually recurring\nsights and sounds which must awaken the quick instincts of liberty,\nyou must extinguish their eyes, and seal up their ears in everlasting\nsilence. The last spring was one of peculiar \u201crefreshing\u201d to the\nardent lovers of liberty. The recent events of Europe were the theme\nof every tongue. Not only in the market-place, in the street, and in\nafter-dinner conversations, was the emancipation of Europe the subject\nof discussion, but stormy eloquence rushed forth from the capital of\nthe nation, like winds from the cave of \u00c6olus, and roared and raved\ntill all but the dead must have heard it. Nay, more, gentlemen, one of\nthe witnesses identified the day when the defendant\u2019s schooner, the\nPearl, came to anchor in the waters of this city, because he remembered\nit as the day of the \u201ctorchlight procession.\u201d And what was the\n\u201ctorchlight procession\u201d? You all know;--drums beating, music playing,\nbonfires blazing, the house of the President and of high official\ndignitaries illuminated, the trees of the avenue fancifully lighted up\nwith many-colored lanterns; men, women, children, and slaves, all out,\nand all agog to see and to hear of the wonderful things which \u201cliberty\u201d\nhad done, or had _not_ done, on the other side of the Atlantic. There,\ntoo, moved in long procession men who were elected for the occasion,\nfrom among the nation\u2019s elect,--heads of departments, senators, and\nrepresentatives,--men distended almost to bursting with eloquence for\nregenerated Europe, who must speak or die! They marched to an open\nspace on Pennsylvania Avenue, where, on an extempore rostrum, they\neased themselves of their repletion of patriotism; while people of all\nkinds, conditions, and colors stood below, empty and agape, to receive\nwhat the upper divinities might send down. And now let me read to you,\ngentlemen of the jury, some of the precious things that were said on\nthat memorable evening,--only two nights before the escape of the\nslaves in the schooner Pearl,--and see, after you have tasted of the\nyeast, if you can wonder at the fermentation:--\n\n \u201c----Events which hold out _to the whole family of man_ so bright\n a promise of _the universal establishment of_ CIVIL _and religious\n liberty_, and the general destruction of monarchical power throughout\n the world.\u201d\n\n \u201cNew and endearing ties\u201d--\u201cbetween the people of liberated France, and\n _the twenty millions of freemen_ who dwell, in all the plenitude of\n social and political happiness, between the great seas which water the\n eastern and western shores of this vast continent.\u201d\n\n \u201cI feel authorized to declare that there is _not one_ in this vast\n multitude whose sympathies are not deeply enkindled in behalf of\n France and Frenchmen.\u201d\n\n \u201c----Such has been the extraordinary course of events in France, and\n in Europe, within the last two months, that the more deliberately we\n survey the scene which has been spread out before us, and the more\n rigidly we scrutinize the conduct of its actors, the more confident\n does our conviction become that the _glorious work_ which has been so\n well begun cannot possibly fail of complete accomplishment; that the\n age of TYRANTS AND SLAVERY is rapidly drawing to a close; and that the\n happy period to be signalized by the _universal emancipation of man_\n from the _fetters of civil oppression_, and the recognition _in all\n countries_ of the great principles of _popular sovereignty, equality,\n and_ BROTHERHOOD, is, at this moment, visibly commencing.\u201d\n\n [Here Judge CRAWFORD broke in, with great sharpness, and said, \u201cMr.\n MANN, such inflammatory language cannot be allowed in this court. We\n have institutions that may be endangered by it. The court thinks it\n its duty to interfere. The counsel cannot be allowed to proceed with\n such inflammatory language.\u201d\n\n Mr. CARLISLE here rose, and, for the space of ten or fifteen minutes,\n with the crowded audience hushed to a grave-like silence, he\n interspersed resistless logic with noble sentiments, in a strain of\n eloquence rarely, if ever, surpassed. He vindicated every word his\n colleague had said, both as to matter and manner, and obtested Heaven\n to preserve American tribunals of justice from following the examples\n of the worst times of English judicial tyranny, when the basest\n minions of the crown were elevated to the bench, that they might\n overawe and abash counsel in their defence of prisoners whom the king\n had foredoomed to punishment.\n\n Judge CRAWFORD. (Trembling with emotion.) Mr. MANN\u2019S course of\n argument was perfectly legitimate. It was the inflammatory language\n that I objected to. It was the language, and not the argument, that\n was objectionable.]\n\nMr. MANN. Gentlemen of the jury, as the interdict against the line of\nargument I was pursuing,--now acknowledged to be just and proper,--has\nbeen withdrawn, I take it up where I left it, and proceed.\n\nMr. KEY, district attorney. I demand to know from what paper the\ngentleman reads.\n\nMr. MANN. (Holding up the paper and pointing to its heading.) From Mr.\nRitchie\u2019s Washington Union, of April 20th. Isn\u2019t that good authority on\nthis subject?\n\nMr. KEY. From whose speech does the gentleman read?\n\nMr. MANN. From the speech of the Hon. Henry S. Foote, a senator in\nCongress from the State of Mississippi.\n\nMr. KEY. The gentleman cannot read a paper to the jury, unless he\nexpects to prove it.\n\nMr. MANN. I deny that as a principle; but, if required, will call Mr.\nFoote to swear to his speech.\n\nJudge CRAWFORD. Mr. Mann knows Mr. Foote did not mean his language for\n_our_ slaves. (A suppressed laugh around the bar.)\n\nMr. MANN. May it please your honor, while nothing, on the one hand,\nwill ever deter me from doing my duty to a client, yet, on the other\nhand, I am moved to say that I have been trained from my youth to\nsuch respect for a court of justice, that I would say nothing to it\nor before it which should not be fitting and appropriate, as apples\nof gold in pictures of silver. Let me then restate my argument, that\nwe may see whether, and by whom, this rule has been departed from. I\nreiterate, then, if slaves are property, they are a peculiar kind of\nproperty. They are instinct with the common desires of humanity, and\namong them one of the deepest and strongest is the love of liberty.\nAnd just in proportion as their value is increased by intelligence and\ndevelopment, just in that proportion is the bond weakened by which they\nare held. In all places slaves hear something, but in this place they\nhear much, of what is said in behalf of human liberty and of human\nrights. If they hear this, and are above the condition of brutes,\nthey will apply it to themselves. Every Fourth of July oration, if\nunderstood, is a torch to light up another St. Domingo. If they hear\nthe word \u201c_slave_\u201d used in reference to those who have been deprived of\ntheir natural rights in other countries, they will apply that word to\ntheir own condition in this. If they hear the word \u201c_tyrants_\u201d used in\nreference to one who deprives others of their rights, for \u201c_tyrants_\u201d\nthey will read \u201c_masters_;\u201d and no mortal power, or law, or art, can\nhelp it, but by blotting out all that is human within them. The slaves\nin this city are constantly hearing what must remind them that they are\nslaves; and therefore they are constantly incited to escape from their\nbondage. The torchlight procession, with its speeches and parade, was\n_one_ among ten thousand of these incitements. The slaves, therefore,\nwho went on board the Pearl, might have obtained the idea of escape\nfrom some other person than from the prisoner,--from some orator who\nlays down rules for the meridian of Europe, which do not quite suit\nthe meridian of America. Hence they might have gone and applied to the\nprisoner for a passage. To this he might have assented. And if so, then\nhis offence can be nothing beyond the offence of \u201ctransporting,\u201d and is\nnot the offence of _stealing_, as charged in this indictment.\n\nAnd, as to the inflammatory language which the court charges me with\nhaving used: every word which was uttered by me, and which the court\ncharacterizes and denounces as \u201cinflammatory,\u201d and thinks not proper to\nbe spoken in this court room, because it may endanger the institutions\nof this city, was the exact language of the Hon. Mr. Foote, senator\nin Congress from the State of Mississippi, uttered by him from the\nrostrum, on Pennsylvania Avenue, the most public place in this city,\non the evening of the 13th of April last, to thousands of people there\nassembled, men, women, children, negroes and all.\n\nI had marked, may it please the court, several other passages,--for\nthis purpose most pungent and piercing,--in the speeches of that\nevening, to be read on this occasion; but as I think both court and\njury are already pretty well apprised of the pertinency and force of\nmy argument under this head, I shall content myself with reading one\npassage more. It is from the speech of the Hon. Frederick P. Staunton,\nrepresentative in Congress from Tennessee, delivered on the same\noccasion, and printed in the same paper:--\n\n \u201cIt has been truly said here this evening, that our example has been\n of essential service to France. Who can doubt it? How different would\n have been the struggle for liberty to be secured by republicanism,\n if there had been no example of a stable republican government to\n which the patriot could point, for the encouragement of his people!\n It is said we are propagandists. We do not, indeed, propagate our\n principles with the sword of power; but there is one sense in which we\n are propagandists. We cannot help being so. Our example is contagious.\n In the section of this great country where I live, on the banks of\n the mighty Mississippi river, we have the true emblem of the tree of\n liberty. There you may see the giant cottonwood spreading his branches\n widely to the winds of heaven. Sometimes the current lays bare his\n roots, and you behold them extending far around and penetrating to\n an immense depth in the soil. When the season of maturity comes, the\n air is filled with a cotton-like substance, which floats in every\n direction, bearing, on its light wings, the living seeds of the mighty\n tree. They lodge upon every bank of sand which emerges from the bosom\n of the receding tide, and soon a young forest is seen to lift its head\n from the surface of the barren waste. Thus the seeds of freedom have\n emanated from the tree of our liberties. They fill the air. They are\n wafted to every part of the habitable globe. And even in the barren\n sands of tyranny they are destined to take root. The tree of liberty\n will spring up every where, and nations shall recline in its shade.\u201d\n\nAnd thus, gentlemen of the jury, I say that while some of the seeds of\nliberty which we scatter are wafted to a foreign realm, and fall upon a\nforeign soil, others will drop upon the hearts of bondmen and bondwomen\nat home, and will there fructify and mature into _their_ appropriate\nharvest.\n\nSuch, gentlemen, are the considerations that lead me to believe that\nthe slaves found on board the schooner Pearl left the possession of\ntheir masters of their own accord, or at the private suggestion of\nsome friend, and not at that of the prisoner; or because they were\npublicly incited thereto by that boastful spirit amongst us which\nis forever shouting the praises of liberty, while restricting the\napplication of its principles. I therefore infer that the prisoner has\nnot committed the act which forms the first ingredient in the offence\nof larceny,--the taking of property from the possession of the owner.\n\n2. To constitute the offence of larceny, the prisoner must have taken\nthe slaves into his own possession. Now, of this there is not a\nparticle of evidence. For aught that appears, the slaves might have\nbeen passengers, on board his schooner, for a fare. They themselves\nmight have paid this fare, or others might have paid it for them. In\neither case, they were no more in possession of the prisoner than you\nor I are in possession of a railroad corporation, when we travel in its\ncars.\n\n3. The third question is, whether, even if the prisoner did take the\nslaves named in this indictment from the possession of Andrew Hoover,\nand into his own possession, he did so for the felonious purpose of\nconverting them to his own use.\n\nThe act of stealing, gentlemen, springs from the impulse to acquire\nproperty, as a means of gratification. This impulse or desire to obtain\nthe means of enjoyment is universal. The law denounces its penalties\nagainst stealing, in order to repress the excesses of this propensity,\nand to confine it to honest acquisitions. Hence one man may interfere\nwith the property of another in a thousand ways, without being guilty\nof stealing. It is not the mere taking of another man\u2019s property,\ntherefore, which constitutes stealing, but the taking of it _in order\nto convert it to the use of the taker_, and so to save himself the\nlabor of earning it. Hence I may take a man\u2019s plough from his field,\nor his wagon from his barn, and use them temporarily; but if I return\nthem again to the owner, it is not stealing, but only a trespass. So,\naccording to the books, I may take a man\u2019s horse from his stable, ride\nhim thirty miles, in order to flee from justice, and then, if I abandon\nthe horse, it is not stealing. It is only a trespass.\n\nThe doctrine, gentlemen, which I wish to enforce upon your minds, is,\nthat every act of taking another man\u2019s property is not stealing. When\na wag, riding with a clergyman to church, took his sermon from his\npocket, for the purpose of enjoying his embarrassment when he should\nget into the pulpit, and find himself in the presence of the enemy\nwithout any ammunition, such taking was not stealing; for doubtless the\nrogue had no intention of appropriating either the sermon or its morals\nto his own use.\n\nSo it is related of Sir Walter Scott, that, when he was a boy at\nschool, he got within one of the head of his class. But the boy at the\nhead never made a mistake, and so he stood there, as perseveringly\nas the letter A stands at the head of the alphabet. But Sir Walter\nobserved that, when his classmate was reciting, his fingers always\nfumbled with a button on his jacket, and, watching his opportunity\nat their next romping on the playground, he cut off the button from\nhis rival\u2019s jacket; and, at the very next lesson, the boy, being\ndisconcerted at not finding the button, missed his answer, and Sir\nWalter rose to the head. But surely this was not stealing.\n\nThe reason why, in each of these cases, one would not be guilty of\nstealing, is, that he does not mean to make the article taken his own.\nHe gets a temporary advantage from it, but does no act that proves\na design of permanent or unlimited ownership. Hence there is the\nbroadest and most striking difference between stealing and malicious\nmischief. If one man takes the property of another, merely to destroy\nor annihilate it, out of ill will or revenge towards the owner, this\nis malicious mischief only, and not stealing. It is not punished as\nstealing. Morally, it may be as wrong,--perhaps worse than stealing\nitself. But this impulse which prompts to the _destruction_ of\nanother man\u2019s property is vastly weaker than that which leads to its\n_appropriation_. The latter is gratified a thousand times where the\nformer is once, and therefore the law visits the former with the milder\npenalty. If taking property from its owner from revenge, and for the\nmalicious purpose of destroying it, be not stealing, but only malicious\nmischief, then surely taking the property for the benevolent purpose\nof doing a kindness to the property itself,--as to a slave,--is not\nstealing.\n\nTake an illustration. Wild animals are the property of no one. The\nundomesticated hares that run over my fields, the pigeons that fly over\nmy house, or the fishes that swim in my streams, are not my property so\nthat they can be the subjects of larceny. If a man takes them, he is\nliable in trespass for entering my grounds, and that is all. But if I\nconfine hares in a warren, or pigeons in a cote, or fishes in a seine,\nthen they are my property, and are the subjects of larceny, because I\nhave reduced them to possession. Under such circumstances, if a man\nshoots or catches them for his table.--that is, to convert them to his\nown use,--he steals them; but if a man merely releases them from their\nconfinement, breaks open their enclosures to let them go free, he is at\nmost only guilty of malicious mischief. The English nobility send to\nFrance for foxes. These are caught in the Pyrenees or other mountains,\nbrought across the English channel, and placed in the parks of noblemen\npreparatory to the barbarous amusement of a fox-hunt. Now, if one lord\nshould take a fox from the park of another lord, for the pleasure of\nhunting him down, on his own premises, this would be stealing; but\nif he should only assist a fox to escape out of the park, for the\nbenevolent purpose of restoring him to his natural liberty, this would\nnot be stealing, but only a trespass. In such a case, the man who\nenlarges the fox does not do it in order to save himself the labor or\nexpense of catching a fox; that is, he does not convert the fox to his\nown use.\n\nLet me give you another illustration, which I select for the beauty\nof the language in which it is conveyed, and for the nobleness of the\nsentiments that accompany it. In the \u201cSentimental Journey\u201d of Sterne,\nthe following incident is related:--\n\n \u201cI was interrupted, in the heyday of this soliloquy, with a voice\n which I took to be of a child, which complained, it could not get out.\n I looked up and down the passage, and seeing neither man, woman, nor\n child, I went out without further attention.\n\n \u201cIn my return back through the passage, I heard the same words\n repeated twice over, and looking up, I saw it was a starling, hung in\n a little cage. \u2018I can\u2019t get out, I can\u2019t get out,\u2019 said the starling.\n\n \u201cI stood looking at the bird, and to every person who came through the\n passage, it ran fluttering to the side which they approached, with\n the same lamentation of its captivity,--\u2018I can\u2019t get out,\u2019 said the\n starling. God help thee! said I, but I\u2019ll let thee out, cost what it\n will; so I turned about the cage to get at the door. It was twisted\n and double twisted so fast with wire, there was no getting it open\n without pulling the cage to pieces. I took both hands to it.\n\n \u201cThe bird flew to the place where I was attempting his deliverance,\n and, thrusting his head through the trellis, pressed his breast\n against it as if impatient. I fear, poor creature, said I, I cannot\n set thee at liberty. \u2018No,\u2019 said the starling, \u2018I can\u2019t get out. I\n can\u2019t get out,\u2019 said the starling.\n\n \u201cI vow I never had my affections more tenderly awakened.\u201d\n\nAnd then he bursts out into that apostrophe to Slavery, which has\nthrilled the hearts of all his readers in times past, and will continue\nto thrill the heart of every reader in all time to come:--\n\n \u201cDisguise thyself as thou wilt, still, Slavery, still thou art a\n bitter draught! and, though thousands in all ages have been made to\n drink of thee, thou art no less bitter on that account. \u2019Tis thou,\n thrice sweet and gracious goddess, LIBERTY, whom all in public or in\n private worship, whose taste is grateful, and ever will be so till\n Nature herself shall change. No _tint_ of words can spot thy snowy\n mantle, or chemic power turn thy sceptre into iron. With thee to smile\n upon him as he eats his crust, the swain is happier than his monarch,\n from whose court thou art exiled. Gracious Heaven! grant me but\n health, thou great Bestower of it, and give me but this fair goddess\n as my companion, and shower down thy mitres, if it seems good unto thy\n divine providence, upon those heads which are aching for them.\u201d\n\nHad Sterne released that bird, and sent it abroad to rejoice in its\nnative fields of air, would his myriads of readers, who have been\ndelighted at the story, have convicted him of _stealing_?\n\nNow for the application. These slaves, by the law of nature, were as\nfree as you or I. By the law and force of man, they have been subjected\nto bondage. If the prisoner took them, and took them either to sell\nthem or to use them himself, then he took them, in the language of the\nlaw, for the felonious purpose of converting them to his own use; and\nsuch taking would be larceny according to the law. But if he took them\nfor the purpose of carrying them to a free state, and of thus restoring\nthem to their natural liberty, then he did not intend to convert them\nto his own use, and is not guilty of stealing.\n\nThere is another view of this case. The harshest doctrines in favor\nof slavery only claim, that a master has a right to the _services_ of\nhis slave. He has not a right to his flesh and bones, so that he can\ncut up the former for dog\u2019s meat, and grind the latter for compost. To\nconstitute larceny, then, of this kind of property, the prisoner must\nhave deprived the master of the _services_ of his slaves, with the\nintent, with the felonious intent, to use _those services_ himself, or\nto sell them to another, which would be the most effective act of use.\nBut no evidence of any such intent has been adduced in this case. I\ntherefore maintain, that neither of the three ingredients necessary to\nconstitute the offence of larceny has been proved by the government.\n\nAnd now, gentlemen, in closing, I will narrate to you the worst of\nthe prisoner\u2019s case. I will make confession for him of the length and\nbreadth of his offence. There resides in this city a man named Daniel\nBell, who was once held as a slave, but who purchased his own freedom.\nHe had a family, consisting of his wife and eight or ten children.\nThese were manumitted by their master, when he was brought to that\nmost searching of all earthly tribunals,--the death bed. After the\nmaster\u2019s decease, his heirs attempted to reclaim the property; for\nthe living and the dying have very different views on the subject\nof slavery. Their ground of claim was, that the master was not of\nsound and disposing mind when he made the deed of manumission. But\nthe magistrate who prepared the deed, and before whom it was executed\nand acknowledged, set that pretence aside by his own knowledge of\nthe grantor\u2019s sanity; and so the family of Bell passed as free, and\nwere treated as free, for years. At length this magistrate died, and\nimmediately the attempt to reduce the family to bondage was renewed.\nA trial was had, and through default of the now deceased magistrate\u2019s\ntestimony, a verdict against them was obtained. But new evidence was\ndiscovered, and one of the most respectable counsellors of this court,\nJoseph H. Bradley, Esq., made oath as to his belief in the sufficiency\nof that evidence, and moved for a new trial. It was while these\nproceedings were pending, in behalf of the wife and children, that they\nbecame alarmed lest they should be clandestinely sent to the south, and\nthere be plunged into irredeemable slavery. Believing themselves free,\nand fearing bondage, they did send to Philadelphia for assistance, (I\ntell you the worst of it,) in being rescued from such a fate. This\ndefendant, Drayton, being led also to believe that they were free, did\ncome to assist them. Drayton might have said to himself, \u201cMen go to\nassist Poles and Hungarians, and even Texans, and get glory for it; and\nwhy should I not assist free women and children in imminent danger of\nbondage?\u201d He arrived here on Thursday evening, the 13th of April, and,\nhaving no other special business, prepared to sail from here, and did\nso sail, on Saturday evening, the 15th. Bell\u2019s family knew the place\nwhere the defendant\u2019s vessel was anchored, and the time fixed for its\ndeparture. Drayton, expecting to meet them there at the time appointed,\nwas not at his vessel during the whole evening. But one thing happened\nwhich he did not expect, and had not provided against. Bell\u2019s family\nhad a few friends whom they thought they could take with them. They\ndid not propose any spoiling of the Egyptians, but thought the escape\nof a few Israelites lawful. But these friends had _their_ friends, and\nthey still another circle; and so, while the defendant was absent from\nhis vessel on Saturday evening, and without his knowledge or consent,\nthey flocked down and stowed themselves in the hold; so that,--and I\nsay now, gentlemen, what I religiously believe to be true,--when these\nslaves were ordered to come on deck after the capture, the prisoner was\nas much astonished as any body at the number of fishes that had got\ninto his net.\n\nThese, gentlemen, are the facts, and, as I believe, all the important\nfacts pertaining to this case; and on these facts we claim that you\nmust acquit the prisoner of the offence of larceny.\n\n NOTE. This case and one or two others were tried, and, in consequence\n of a series of most extraordinary rulings by the court, a verdict of\n \u201c_guilty_\u201d was rendered.\n\n Every lawyer knows that in the course of a trial, when counsel can\n have no time for examination or reflection, they take exceptions,\n wherever an objection to the decision of the judge seems probably, or\n even plausibly good. A clew, therefore, will be given to the course\n which the court pursued throughout these trials, when the fact is\n stated, that, on appeal to the Superior Court, _seventeen_ out of\n _twenty-four_ of the rulings of the judge to which exception had been\n taken were set aside.\n\n The cases for larceny were remanded to be tried anew, when a verdict\n of \u201cnot guilty\u201d was rendered in them all.\n\n Drayton, the captain, and Sayres, his mate, were afterwards convicted\n of \u201ctransporting\u201d the slaves, and were fined.\n\n English, the \u201cboy,\u201d though indicted in one hundred and fifteen\n indictments, was discharged without a trial.\n\n Part of Bell\u2019s free family were ransomed; the rest were sold and sent\n to the South.\n\n Although the facts pertaining to the mob, the repeated attempts\n upon Drayton\u2019s life, the besieging of the jail, and the expulsion\n of Drayton\u2019s counsel from it when engaged in his defence, all came\n out before the grand jury that found these scores and hundreds of\n indictments, and though it was notorious who some of the ringleaders\n of the mob were, yet no bill of indictment was ever found against any\n of them.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[4] In attendance upon the trial, and stationing themselves as near as\npracticable to the counsel for the defence, were men who cocked pistols\nand drew dirks upon Drayton, in the mob that pursued him.\n\n\n\n\n                                LETTER\n\n TO THE WHIG CONVENTION, (AND ALSO TO THE FREE SOIL CONVENTION,\n _mutatis mutandis_,) ACCEPTING THEIR RESPECTIVE NOMINATIONS FOR THE\n THIRTY-FIRST CONGRESS.\n\n\n [_One paragraph of this Letter is omitted, as referring to a subject\n unconnected with the object of the present volume._]\n\n                                            WEST NEWTON, Sept. 23, 1848.\n\nGENTLEMEN;\n\nI have received with lively emotions of gratitude a copy of the\nresolutions passed at a district convention, held at Dedham, on the --\ninst.; from one of which it appears that I was unanimously nominated by\nthe convention, as their candidate for the Thirty-first Congress of the\nUnited States.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe convention you have the honor to represent was pleased to refer\nto my views respecting the institution of slavery. Some of these\nviews were partly expressed in the remarks made by me in the House\nof Representatives, on the 30th of June last; in the letter to my\nconstituents before referred to; and in my arguments before the\n_Criminal_ Court of the District of Columbia, in the \u201cPearl\u201d cases.\nThese, and kindred views, I shall improve all fitting opportunities\nthat I may ever enjoy to enlarge upon and enforce; and had I the tongue\nof an angel, or the pen of inspiration, I believe I could use them on\nno holier theme than in kindling abhorrence at the wrongs suffered\nby the slave, and in melting the universal heart of humanity into\npity for his lot; for I hold it to be impossible for the soul of a\nslave,--benighted, strangled, and buried alive as it is,--ever fully\nto know and feel the joys of that spiritual liberty wherewith Christ\nmaketh his disciples free.\n\nBe pleased, gentlemen, to accept my thanks for the very kind manner\nin which you have made known to me the decision of the convention you\nrepresent, and believe me,\n\n                              Very truly and sincerely, yours, &c., &c.,\n                              HORACE MANN.\n\n\n\n\n                                SPEECH\n\n DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES,\n FEBRUARY 23, 1849, ON SLAVERY AND THE SLAVE TRADE IN THE DISTRICT OF\n COLUMBIA.\n\n\n  MR. CHAIRMAN;\n\nThere is a bill upon the speaker\u2019s table which provides for abolishing\nthe slave trade in the District of Columbia. For three successive\ndays we have tried in vain to reach it, in the order of business. Its\nopponents have baffled our efforts. Our difficulty is not in carrying\nthe bill, but in reaching it. I am not without apprehension that the\nlast sands of this Congress will run out, without any action upon the\nsubject. Even should the bill be taken up, it is probable that all\ndebate upon it will be suppressed by that sovereign silencer,--the\nprevious question. Hence I avail myself of the present opportunity, as\nit is probably the only one I shall have, during the present session,\nto submit my views upon it.\n\nI frankly avow, in the outset, that the bill provides for one part only\nof an evil, whose remedy, as it seems to me, is not only the object\nof a reasonable desire, but of a righteous and legal demand. The bill\nproposes the abolition, not of slavery, but only of the slave trade, in\nthe District of Columbia. My argument will go to show, that, within the\nlimits of this District, slavery ought not to exist in fact, and does\nnot exist in law.\n\nSir, in the first place, let us inquire what is the state of things\nin this District on this subject. The gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. R.\nW. THOMPSON,] who addressed us a few days since, used the following\nlanguage:--\n\n \u201cWhat is the slave trade in the District of Columbia? I have\n heard a great deal said about \u2018slave pens,\u2019--about slaves sold\n at auction,--and about stripping the mother from the child, and\n the husband from the wife. These things may exist here, but I do\n not know of them. Since I have been in the habit of visiting the\n District,--which is from my boyhood,--I have never seen a negro sold\n here,--I have never seen a band of negroes taken off by the slave\n trader. I do not remember that I have ever seen the slave trader\n himself. I know nothing of the \u2018slave pen\u2019 that is so much talked\n about. It may be here, however, and these things may happen every\n day before the eyes of gentlemen who choose to hunt them up; but for\n myself, I have no taste for such things.\u201d\n\nNow, sir, if the gentleman means to say that he has no personal\nknowledge of \u201cslave pens\u201d and of the slave traffic in this District,\nthat is one thing; but if he means to deny or call in question the\nexistence of the traffic itself, or of the dens where its concentrated\niniquities make up the daily employment of men, that is quite\nanother thing. Sir, from the western front of this Capitol, from the\npiazza that opens out from your congressional library, as you cast\nyour eye along the horizon and over the conspicuous objects of the\nlandscape,--the President\u2019s Mansion, the Smithsonian Institution,\nand the site of the Washington Monument, you cannot fail to see the\nhorrid and black receptacles where human beings are penned like\ncattle, and kept like cattle, that they may be sold like cattle,--as\nstrictly and literally so as oxen and swine are kept and sold at the\nSmithfield shambles in London, or at the cattle fair in Brighton. In a\ncommunication made during the last session, by the mayor of this city,\nto an honorable member of this House, _he_ acknowledges the existence\nof slave pens here. Up and down the beautiful river that sweeps along\nthe western margin of the District, slavers come and go, bearing\ntheir freight of human souls to be vended in this market-place; and\nafter they have changed hands, according to the forms of commerce,\nthey are retransported,--the father of a family to go, perhaps, to\nthe rice fields of South Carolina, the mother to the cotton fields of\nAlabama, and the children to be scattered over the sugar plantations of\nLouisiana or Texas.\n\nSir, it is notorious that the slave traders of this District advertise\nfor slaves in the newspapers of the neighboring counties of Maryland,\nto be delivered in any numbers at their slave pens in this city; and\nthat they have agents, in the city and out of it, who are engaged in\nsupplying victims for their shambles. Since the gentleman from Indiana\nwas elected to this Congress, and, I believe, since he took his seat\nin this Congress, one coffle of about sixty slaves came, chained and\ndriven, into this city; and at about the same time another coffle of a\nhundred. Here they were lodged for a short period, were then sold, and\nwent on their returnless way to the ingulfing south.\n\nSir, all this is done here under our own eyes, and within hearing of\nour own ears. All this is done now, and it has been done for fifty\nyears,--ever since the seat of the national government was established\nin this place, and ever since Congress, in accordance with the\nconstitution, has exercised \u201c_exclusive_ legislation\u201d over it. But\nthe gentleman from Indiana, though accustomed to visit this District\nfrom his boyhood, has \u201cnever seen a negro sold here;\u201d--he has \u201cnever\nseen a band of negroes taken off by the slave trader;\u201d he does not\nremember \u201cto have seen the slave trader himself;\u201d he knows \u201cnothing of\nthe \u2018slave pen\u2019 that is so much talked about.\u201d Sir, the eye sees, not\nless from the inner than from the outer light. The eye sees what the\nmind is disposed to recognize. The image upon the retina is nothing,\nif there be not an inward sense to discern it. The artist sees beauty;\nthe philosopher sees relations of cause and effect; the benevolent\nman catches the slightest tone of sorrow; but the insensate heart can\nwade through tears and see no weeping, and can live amidst groans of\nanguish, and the air will be a non-conductor of the sound. I know a\ntrue anecdote of an American gentleman who walked through the streets\nof London with a British nobleman; and being beset at every step of the\nway by squalid mendicants, the American, at the end of the excursion,\nadverted to their having run a gantlet between beggars. \u201cWhat beggars?\u201d\nsaid his lordship; \u201c_I have seen none_.\u201d\n\nBut the gentleman from Indiana says, \u201cBut for myself, I have no taste\nfor such things.\u201d His taste explains his vision. Suppose Wilberforce\nand Clarkson to have had no \u201ctaste\u201d for quelling the horrors of the\nAfrican slave trade. Suppose Howard and Mrs. Fry to have had no \u201ctaste\u201d\nfor laying open the abominations of the prison-house, and for giving\nrelief to the prisoner. Suppose Miss Dix to have had no \u201ctaste\u201d for\ncarrying solace and comfort and restoration to the insane. Suppose the\nAbb\u00e9 L\u2019Ep\u00e9e to have had no \u201ctaste\u201d for teaching deaf mutes; or the Abb\u00e9\nHauy for educating the blind; or M. Seguin and others for training\nidiots, and for educing docility and decency, and a love of order from\nthose almost imperceptible germs of reason and sense, that barely\ndistinguish them from the brutes! Suppose these things, and in what a\ndifferent condition would the charities and the sufferings of the world\nhave been! Herod had no \u201ctaste\u201d for sparing the lives of the children\nof Bethlehem, and of all the coasts thereof; and doubtless he could\nhave said, with entire truth, that he never heard the voice, in Rama,\nof lamentation and weeping and great mourning; nor saw, among all the\nmothers of Syria, any Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to\nbe comforted, because they were not. But, sir, just in proportion as\nthe light of civilization and Christianity dawns upon the world, will\nmen be found who have a \u201ctaste\u201d for succoring the afflicted and for\nrighting the wronged. It was the clearest proof of the Great Teacher\u2019s\nmission, that he had \u201ca taste\u201d for going about doing good.\n\nDuring the last fifty years, and especially during the last half of\nthese fifty years, the world has made great advances in the principles\nof liberty. Human rights have been recognized, and their practical\nenjoyment, to some extent, secured. There is not a government in\nEurope, even the most iron and despotical of them all, that has not\nparticipated in the ameliorations which characterize the present age. A\nnoble catalogue of rights has been wrested by the British commons from\nthe British nobility. France and Italy have been revolutionized. Even\nthe Pope of Rome, whose power seemed as eternal as the hills on which\nhe was seated, has sunk under the shock. Prussia, and all the Germanic\npowers, with the exception of Austria, have been half revolutionized;\nand even the icy despotisms of Austria and Russia are forced to relent\nunder those central fires of liberty which burn forever in the human\nheart, as the central fires of the earth burn forever at its core.\nGreat Britain has abolished African slavery throughout all her realms.\nFrance has declared that any one who shall voluntarily become the owner\nof a slave, or shall voluntarily continue to be the owner of a slave\ncast upon him by bequest or inheritance, shall cease to be a citizen\nof France. Denmark has abolished slavery wherever it existed in her\npossessions. The Bey of Tunis, acting under the light of the Mahometan\nreligion, has abolished it. The priests of Persia declare the sentiment\nto have come by tradition from Mahomet himself, \u201cthat the worst of\nmen is the seller of men.\u201d Not only all civilized nations, but the\nhalf civilized, the semi-barbarous, are acting under the guidance of\nthe clearer light and the higher motives of our day. But there is\none conspicuous exception; there is one government which closes its\neyes to this increasing light; which resists the persuasion of these\nennobling motives; which, on the grand subject of human liberty and\nhuman rights, is stationary and even retrogrades, while the whole world\naround is advancing; sleeps while all others are awaking; loves its\ndarkness while all others are aspiring and ascending to a purer air and\na brighter sky. This government, too, is the one which is most boastful\nand vain-glorious of its freedom; and if the humiliating truth must\nbe spoken, this government is our own. In regard to slavery and the\nslave trade in this District, where we possess the power of exclusive\nlegislation, we stand where we stood fifty years ago. Not a single\nameliorating law has been passed. In practice, we are where we were\nthen; in spirit, there are proofs that we have gone backward.\n\nThere are now on the surface of the globe two conspicuous\nplaces,--places which are attracting the gaze of the whole civilized\nworld,--whither men and women are brought from great distances to be\nsold, and whence they are carried to great distances to suffer the\nheaviest wrongs that human nature can bear. One of these places is the\ncoast of Africa, which is among the most pagan and benighted regions of\nthe earth; the other is the District of Columbia, the capital and seat\nof government of the United States.\n\nAs far back as 1808, Congress did what it could to abolish the slave\ntrade on the coast of Africa. In 1820 it declared the foreign slave\ntrade to be piracy; but on the 31st of January, 1849, a bill was\nintroduced into this House to abolish the domestic slave trade in\nthis District,--here, in the centre and heart of the nation,--and\nseventy-two representatives voted against it,--voted to lay it on the\ntable, where, as we all know, it would sleep a dreamless sleep. This\nwas in the House of Representatives. It is well known that the Senate\nis still more resistant of progress than the House; and it is the\nopinion of many that, even if a bill should pass both House and Senate,\nit would receive the Executive veto. By authority of Congress, the city\nof Washington is the Congo of America.\n\nBut, still more degrading than this, there is another contrast which\nwe present to the whole civilized world. The very slaves upon whom we\nhave trodden have risen above us, and their moral superiority makes\nour conduct ignominious. Not Europeans only, not only Arabians and\nTurks, are emerging from the inhumanity and the enormities of the slave\ntraffic; but even our own slaves, transplanted to the land of their\nfathers, are raising barriers against the spread of this execrable\ncommerce. On the shores of Africa, a republic is springing up, whose\ninhabitants were transplanted from this Egypt of bondage. And now,\nlook at the government which these slaves and descendants of slaves\nhave established, and contrast it with our own. They discard the\ninstitution of slavery, while we cherish it. A far greater proportion\nof their children than of the white children of the slave states of\nthis Union are at school. In the metropolis of their nation, their\nflag does not protect the slave traffic, nor wave over the slave mart.\nWould to God that the very opposite of this were not true of our own!\nTheir laws punish the merchandise of human beings; our laws sanction\nand encourage it. They have erected, and are erecting, fortifications\nand military posts along the shores of the Atlantic, for seven hundred\nmiles, to prevent pirates from invading the domain of their neighbors,\nand kidnapping people who, to them, are foreign nations. We open\nmarket-places here, at the centre of the nation, where, from seven\nhundred miles of coast, the sellers may come to sell, and where buyers\nmay come to buy, and whence slaves are carried almost as far from\ntheir birthplace as Africa is from America. The governor of Liberia\nhas lately made a voyage to England and France, and entered into\ntreaties of amity and commerce with them; and he has obtained naval\nforces from them, to abolish this traffic in human beings. At the same\ntime, we are affording guaranties to the same traffic. Virginia and\nMaryland are to the slave trade what the interior of Africa once was.\nThe Potomac and the Chesapeake are the American Niger and Bight of\nBenin; while this District is the great government barracoon, whence\ncoffles are driven across the country to Alabama or Texas, as slave\nships once bore their dreadful cargoes of agony and woe across the\nAtlantic. The very race, then, which were first stolen, brought to this\ncountry, despoiled of all the rights which God had given them, and kept\nin bondage for generations, at last, after redeeming themselves, or\nbeing restored to their natural liberty in some other way, have crossed\nthe ocean, established a government for themselves, and are now setting\nus an example which should cause our cheeks to blister with shame.\n\nSir, there is an idea often introduced here and elsewhere, and made\nto bear against any restriction of slavery, or any amelioration of\nthe condition of the slave, which I wish to consider. It was brought\nodiously and prominently forward the other day, by the gentleman from\nPennsylvania, [Mr. CHARLES BROWN.] The idea is, that the slaves are in\na better condition in this country than they would have been at home.\nIt is affirmed that they are brought under some degree of civilizing\nand humanizing influences amongst us, which they would not have felt in\nthe land of their fathers.\n\nLet us look, first, at the philosophy of this notion, and then at its\nmorality. All those who use this argument as a defence or a mitigation\nof the evils of slavery, or as a _final cause_ for its existence,\n_assume_ that if the present three million slaves, who now darken\nour southern horizon, and fill the air with their groans, had not\nbeen here in their present state of bondage, they would have been in\nAfrica, in a state of paganism. Now, the slightest reflection shows\nthat this assumption has no basis of truth. Not one of them all would\nnow have been in existence, if their ancestors had not been brought to\nthis country. And, according to the laws of population operative among\nbarbarous nations, there are now just as many inhabitants,--pagans,\ncannibals, or what you please,--in Africa, as there would have been if\nthe spoiler had never entered their home, and ravished and borne them\ninto bondage. Among savage nations, or nomadic tribes, the population\nequals the means of subsistence. Take away two, three, or four per\ncent. of the consumers, and the vacuum is immediately filled. The\npopulation keeps up to the level of the production. Among such people,\nthere is always a tendency to increase faster than the means of living\nincrease. Take away a part of them, and this tendency to increase takes\neffect by its own vigor,--it executes itself. It is like a bow that\nunbends, or a spring that uncoils, as soon as an external pressure is\nremoved. Dam up a fountain, and the weight of the accumulating strata\nwill eventually check the outflow from the spring. So it is of a savage\npopulation. Of them, the Malthusian theory is true.\n\nAnd how infinitely absurd and ridiculous is the plea that the slaves\nare better off here \u201c_than_ THEY _would have been in Africa_\u201d!\nGo out into the streets of this city, and take the first one you\nmeet,--perhaps he is a mulatto. But for being here, he would have been\na mulatto in the middle of Africa, would he? Take them all,--mulatto,\nmestizo, zambo, and all \u201cthe vast variety of man,\u201d so far as color is\nconcerned,--and if they had not their existence here, they would have\nhad it in Africa! This is the doctrine. Would they have had the same\nAmerican names also? Would they have spoken the same language, and\nworn cotton grown on the same fields? The last is just as certain as\nthe first. It is all more silly than the repinings of the silly girls\nwho grieved because their mother had not married a certain rich suitor,\nwhose addresses in early life she had rejected; for then, said they,\nhow rich _we_ should have been! No, not one of these three millions of\nmen, women, and children, would have been in existence in Africa. All\nthe crime of their kidnapping; all the horrors of the middle passage;\nall their sufferings for two centuries, or six generations; and all\nthe calamities that are yet to grow out of their condition,--all these\ncrimes and agonies are gratuitous crimes and agonies. There is no\nrecompense or palliation for them. They have been added unnecessarily\nand remorselessly to the amount of human guilt and suffering for which\nthe white race must answer in the day of account. The idea, then, of\nsending the slaves back to _their_ country is an egregious fallacy.\nIf they were to be sent _back_ whence they came, it would not be to\nAfrica, but to nonentity.\n\nIf the ancestors of the present three millions of slaves had never been\nbrought here,--if their descendants had never been propagated here,\nfor the supposed value of their services, their places would have been\nsupplied by white laborers,--by men of the Caucasian race,--by freemen.\nInstead of the three million slaves, of all colors, we should doubtless\nnow have at least three million white, freeborn citizens, adding to the\nreal prosperity of the country, and to the power of the Republic. If\nthe south had not had slaves to do their work for them, they would have\nbecome ingenious and inventive like the north, and would have enlisted\nthe vast forces of nature in their service,--wind, and fire, and water,\nand steam, and lightning, the mighty energies of gravitation and the\nsubtle forces of chemistry. The country might not have had so gaudy\nand ostentatious a civilization as at present, but it would have had\none infinitely more pure and sound.\n\nBut admit the alleged statement, absurd and false as it is; admit that\nthese three millions of slaves would have belonged to Africa if they\nhad not belonged to America,--that they would have been born of the\nsame fathers and mothers there as here, so that those of them who are\nAmerican mulattoes would have been Ethiopian mulattoes; and admit,\nfurther, that their present condition is better than the alternative\ncondition alleged,--and what then? Is your duty done? Is it enough if\nyou have made the condition of a man or of a race a little better,\nor any better, if you have not made it as much better as you can?\nWhat standard of morals do gentlemen propose to themselves? If a\nfellow-being is suffering under a hundred diseases, and we can relieve\nhim from them all, what kind of benevolence is that which boasts of\nrelieving him from one, and permits him to suffer under the other\nninety and nine? By the law of nature and of God, the slave, like\nevery other man, is entitled \u201cto life, liberty, and the pursuit of\nhappiness;\u201d he is entitled to his earnings,--to the enjoyment of his\nsocial affections,--to the development of his intellectual and moral\nfaculties,--to that cultivation of his religious nature which shall fit\nhim, not merely to feel, but reason of righteousness, temperance, and\na judgment to come;--he is entitled to all these rights, of which he\nhas been cruelly despoiled; and when he catches some feeble glimmering\nof some of them, we withhold the rest, and defend ourselves and pride\nourselves that he is better off than he would have been in some other\ncountry or in some other condition. Suppose the Samaritan had bound up\na single wound, or relieved a single pang of the bleeding wayfarer who\nhad fallen among thieves, and then had gone to the next inn and boasted\nof his benevolence. He would only have shown the difference between a\n\u201cgood Samaritan\u201d and a \u201cbigot Samaritan.\u201d The thieves themselves might\nhave done as much.\n\nBut there is another inquiry which the champions of slavery have got\nto answer before the world and before Heaven. If American slaves are\nbetter off than native Africans, who is to be thanked for it? Has their\nimproved condition resulted from any purposed plan, any well-digested,\nsystematized measure, carefully thought out, and reasoned out, and\nintended for their benefit? Not at all. In all the southern statute\nbooks, and legislative records, there is no trace of any such scheme.\nLaws, judicial decisions, the writing of political economists,--all\ntreat the slave as a thing to make money with. Agricultural societies\ngive rewards for the best crops. Horse-jockey societies improve the\nfleetness of the breed for the sports of the turf. Even the dogs have\nprofessional trainers. But not one thing is done to bring out the\nqualities of manhood that lie buried in a slave. Look through the\nsouthern statute books, and see what Draconian penalties are inflicted\nfor teaching a slave to read,--see how he is lashed for attending a\nmeeting to hear the Word of God. On every highroad patrols lie in wait\nto scourge him back if he attempts to visit father, mother, wife,\nchild, or friend, on a neighboring plantation. By day and by night,\nat all times and every where, he is the victim of an energetic and\ncomprehensive system of measures, which blot out his senses, paralyze\nhis mind, degrade and brutify his nature, and suppress the instinctive\nworkings of truth, generosity, and manhood in his breast. All the good\nthat reaches him, reaches him in defiance of these privations and\ndisabilities. If any light penetrates to his soul, it is because human\nart cannot weave a cloud dense and dark enough to be wholly impervious\nto it. There are some blessings which the goodness of God will bestow\nin spite of human efforts to intercept them. It is these only which\nreach the slave. And after having built up all barriers to forbid the\naccess of improvement; after having sealed his senses by ignorance, and\nmore than half obliterated his faculties by neglect and perversion, the\noppressor turns round, and because there are some scanty, incidental\nbenefits growing out of the very deplorableness of his condition, he\njustifies himself before the world, and claims the approval of Heaven,\nbecause the slave is better off here than _he_ would be in Africa.\nSir, such an argument as this is an offence to Heaven. I consider it\nto be as much worse than atheism as Christianity is better. And when\nsuch an argument comes from a gentleman belonging to a free state;\nwhen it comes from the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. BROWN,] from\na representative of the city of William Penn; when he, without motive,\nwithout inducement, offers such a gratuity to the devil, I can account\nfor it only on the principle of the man who, having a keen relish for\nthe flesh of swine, said he wished he were a Jew, that he might have\nthe pleasure of eating pork and committing a sin at the same time.\n\nBut the subject presents a still more painful aspect. How are slaves\nmade better, and from what motives are they made better, in this\ncountry? It is no secret that I am about to tell. There are certain\nvirtues and sanctities which increase the pecuniary value of certain\nslaves; and there are certain vices and debasements which increase\nthe market price of others. If a master wishes to repose personal\nconfidence in his slave, he desires to have him honest and faithful\nto truth. But if he desires to make use of him to deceive and cajole\nand defraud, then he wishes to make him cunning and tricky and false.\nIf the master trains the slave to take care of his own children, or\nof his favorite animals, then he wishes to have him kind; but if he\ntrains him for a tasker or a field overseer, then he wishes to have him\nsevere. Now, it is in this way that some of the Christian attributes\nof character, being directly convertible into money or money\u2019s worth,\nenhance the value of a slave. Hence, it is said in advertisements that\na slave is pious, and, at the auction block, the hardened and heartless\nseller dwells upon the Christian graces and religious character of some\nslaves with the unction of an apostle. The purchaser sympathizes, and\nonly desires to know whether the article be a real or a sham Christian.\nIf mere bones and muscles compacted into human shape be worth five\nhundred dollars, then, if the auctioneer can warrant the subject to\nhave the meekness of Moses and the patience of Job, the same article\nmay be worth seven hundred. If the slave will forgive injuries, not\nmerely seventy times seven, but injuries inflicted all his life long,\nthen an additional hundred may be bid for him. If he possesses all\nthe attributes of religion and piety, the endurance of a hero, the\nconstancy of a saint, the firmness of a martyr, the trustingness of a\ndisciple,--all except those which go to make him feel like a man, and\nbelieve himself a man,--then that which as mere bone and muscle was\nworth five hundred dollars, is now worth a thousand. Sir, is not this\nselling the Holy Spirit? Is not this making merchandise of the Savior?\nIs not this the case of Judas selling his Master over again, with the\nimportant exception of the remorse that made the original culprit\ngo and hang himself? But suppose the case to be that of a woman;\nsuppose her ability to work and capacity for production to be worth\nfive hundred dollars; suppose, in addition to this, she is young and\nsprightly and voluptuous; suppose the repeated infusion of Saxon blood\nhas almost washed the darkness from her skin; and suppose she is not\nunwilling to submit herself to the libertine\u2019s embrace; then, too, that\nwhich before was worth but five hundred dollars, will now bring two\nthousand. And thus infernal as well as celestial qualities are coined\ninto money, according to the demands of the market and the uses of the\npurchaser.\n\nNow, it is only in some such incidental way, and with regard to some\nindividuals, that it can be said, that their condition is better here\nthan it would be in Africa. And this improvement, where it exists, is\nnot the result of any system of measures designed for their benefit,\nbut is the product of selfish motives, turning godliness into gain;\nand where more gain or more gratification can be obtained by the\ndebasement, the irreligion, the pollution of the slave, there the\ninstincts of chastity, the sanctity of the marriage relation, the\nholiness of maternal love are all profaned to give security and zest\nto the guilty pleasures of the sensualist and debauchee. There are\nindividual exceptions to what I have said,--exceptions which, amid\nsurrounding iniquity, shine \u201clike a jewel in an Ethiop\u2019s ear,\u201d but they\nare exceptions. Laws, institutions, and the prevailing public sentiment\nare as I have described.\n\nI regard the argument, therefore, of the gentleman from Pennsylvania,\n[Mr. BROWN,] not only as utterly unsound and false in its premises,\nbut as blasphemous in its conclusions. Common blasphemy seldom reaches\nbeyond exclamation. It is some fiery outburst of impious passion, that\nflashes and expires. But the gentleman reasons it out coolly. His is\nargumentative blasphemy, borrowing the forms of logic that it may\nappear to have its force, and transferring it from the passions to the\nintellect, to give it permanency.\n\nBut the gentleman from Pennsylvania retorts upon Massachusetts,\nand refers to certain things in her history which he regards as\ndisreputable to her. In this he has been followed by the gentleman from\nVirginia, [Mr. BEDINGER,] who has poured out a torrent of abuse upon\nmy native state, and who has attempted to fortify his own intemperate\naccusations from a pro-slavery pamphlet which has been profusely\nscattered about this House within a few days past, and which is not\nmerely full of falsehoods, but is composed of falsehoods; so that if\none were to take the false assertions and the false arguments out of\nit, there would be nothing but the covers left.[5] Sir, I am very\nfar from arrogating for Massachusetts all the merits and the virtues\nwhich she ought to possess. I mourn over her errors, and would die to\nreform, rather than spend one breath to defend them. The recital of her\noffences can fall more sadly upon no ear than upon my own. But it is\nas true of a state as of an individual, that repentance is the first\nstep towards reformation. Massachusetts has committed errors; but when\nthey were seen to be errors, she discarded them. She once held slaves;\nbut when she saw that slavery was contrary to the rights of man and\nthe law of God, she emancipated them. She was the first government\nin the civilized world,--in the whole world, ancient or modern,--to\nabolish slavery, wherever she had power to do so. This is an honor\nthat no rival can ever snatch from her brow. Once,--I say it with\nhumiliation,--she was engaged in the slave trade. But all the gold that\ncould be earned by the accursed traffic, though spent in the splendors\nof luxury and the seductions of hospitality, could not save the trader\nhimself from infamy and scorn; and I am sure I am right in saying that\nthe slave trade ceased to be conducted by Massachusetts merchants, and\nto be carried on in Massachusetts ships, from Massachusetts ports,\nbefore it was abandoned by the merchants and discontinued in the ships\nand from the ports of any other commercial state or nation in the\nworld. This, too, is an honor, which it will be hers, through all the\nimmortality of the ages, alone to wear. But Massachusetts, it is still\nsaid, has her idolaters of Mammon in other forms. It is charged upon\nher that many of her children still wallow in the sty of intemperance;\nthat her spiritualism runs wild in religious vagaries; and that\nsomething of the old leaven of persecution still clings to her heart.\nIn vindicating what is right, I will not defend what is wrong. I cannot\ndeny,--would to God that I could,--that we still have vices and vicious\nmen amongst us. There are those there, as elsewhere, who, if they were\nto hear for the first time of the River of Life flowing fast by the\nthrone of God, would instinctively ask whether there were any good\nmill sites on it. There are those there, as elsewhere, whose highest\naspirations for heaven and for happiness, whether for this life or for\nanother, are a distillery and a sugar-house, with steam machinery to\nmix the products. There, as elsewhere, there are religionists who are\nquick to imitate the Savior when he strikes, but despise his example\nwhen he heals.\n\nBut, sir, let me say this for Massachusetts, that whatever sins she\nmay have committed in former times,--whatever dissenters she may have\npersecuted, or witches she may have hanged, or Africans she may have\nstolen and sold,--she has long since abandoned these offences, and\nis bringing forth fruits meet for repentance. And is a state to have\nno benefit from a statute of limitations? Is a crime committed by\nancestors to be forever imputed to their posterity? This is worse than\nnon-forgiveness; it is making punishment hereditary. Sir, of these\noffences, Massachusetts has repented and reformed; and she is giving\nthat noblest of atonements or expiations, which consists in repairing\nthe wrong that has been done; and where the victim of the wrong has\nhimself passed away, and is beyond relief, then in paying, with large\ninterest, the debt to humanity which the special creditor is no longer\npresent to receive, by seeking out the objects of want and suffering\nwherever they may be found. Sir, our accusers unconsciously do us\nthe highest honor, when, in their zeal to malign us, they seek for\nhistorical reproaches. If they could find present offences wherewith\nto upbraid us, they would not exhume the past. But they condemn\nthemselves, for they show that even the resuscitation of the errors of\nthe dead gives them more pleasure than a contemplation of the virtues\nof the living. One thing is certain: the moment the other states shall\nimitate our present example, they will cease to condemn us for our past\noffences. The sympathy of a common desire for improvement will destroy\nthe pleasure of crimination.\n\nAnd where, I ask, on the surface of the earth, is there a population of\nonly eight hundred thousand, who are striving so earnestly, and doing\nso much, to advance the cause of humanity and civilization, as is doing\nby the people of Massachusetts? Where else, where universal suffrage is\nallowed, is a million of dollars voted every year, by the very men who\nhave to pay it, for the public, free education of every child in the\nstate?\n\nWhere else, by such a limited population, is another million of dollars\nvoluntarily voted and paid each year for the salaries of clergymen\nalone? Where else, where the population is so small, and natural\nresources so few and scanty, is still another million of dollars\nannually given in charity?--the greater portion of which is sent beyond\ntheir own borders, flows into every state in the Union, and leaves\nnot a nation on the globe, nor an island in the sea, unwatered by its\nfertilizing streams. Look into the statute book of Massachusetts,\nfor the last twenty years, and you will see how the whole current of\nher legislation has set in the direction of human improvement,--for\nsuccoring disease or restoration from it, for supplying the privations\nof nature, for reclaiming the vicious, for elevating all,--a\ncomprehensiveness of scope that takes in every human being, and an\nenergy of action that follows every individual with a blessing to his\nhome. When others will abandon their offences, then let the remembrance\nof them be blotted out.\n\nBut, sir, I think it proper to advert to the fact that I have had\nother proofs, during the present session of Congress, of the same\nspirit of crimination and obloquy which was so fully developed in the\nspeeches of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. BROWN,] and the\ngentleman from Virginia, [Mr. BEDINGER.] Through the post-office of\nthe House of Representatives, I have been in the regular receipt of\nanonymous letters, made up mainly of small slips cut from newspapers\nprinted at the north, describing some case of murder, suicide,\nrobbery, or other offence. These have been arranged under the heads\nof different states,--Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut, &c.,\nand accompanied, in the margin, with rude drawings of a school-book\nor a school house, and all referred to Common Schools, as to their\nsource. Two only, of the whole number thus collected, originated in\nMassachusetts, and one of these was a case of suicide committed by a\nman who had become insane from the loss of his wife. Which of these\nevents, in the opinion of my anonymous correspondent, constituted\nthe crime,--whether the bereavement that caused the insanity, or the\nsuicide committed in one of its paroxysms,--I am unable to say. Now,\nwhat satisfaction even a bad man could have in referring offences\nagainst law and morality to the institution of public schools, when he\nmust have known that the very existence of the offences only proves\nthat education has not yet done its perfect work, I cannot conceive.\nAnd what spite, either against an educational office which I once held,\nor against an institution which is worthy of all honor, could be so\nmean and paltry as to derive gratification from referring me to long\nlists of offences, only one of which was committed in my native state,\nI must leave for others to conjecture. Surely the author of these\nletters must have known little of Common Schools, and profited by them\nas little as he has known. Had he referred to any considerable number\nof crimes perpetrated in Massachusetts, I would take his letters home\nand carry them into our public schools, and make them the text for a\nsermon, in which I would warn the children to beware of all crimes, and\nespecially of the meanness and the wickedness which feels a complacency\nin the crimes of others, or can give a false paternity to them. And,\nsir, I should be sure of a response; for out of those schools there\nis going forth a nobler band of young men and women than ever before\nconferred intelligence, virtue, refinement, and renown upon any people\nor community on the face of the globe.\n\nBut whatever may be said in mitigation or in condemnation of slavery\nelsewhere, there are special reasons why it should be discontinued in\nthis District. This District is the common property of the nation.\nHaving power of exclusive legislation over it, we are all responsible\nfor the institutions in it. While slaves exist in it, therefore, it can\nbe charged upon the north that they uphold slavery. This is unjust to\nus, because it places us before the world in the attitude of sustaining\nwhat we condemn. It wounds our moral and religious sensibilities,\nbecause we believe the institution to be cruel towards men, and sinful\nin the sight of Heaven; and yet we are made apparently to sanction it.\nIt is like that species of injustice where a man is compelled by a tax\nto support a religion which he disbelieves, and to pay a hierarchy\nwhom his conscience compels him to denounce. But the existence of\nslavery here is not necessary to the faith or the practice of our\nsouthern brethren. If they believe it to be a useful and justifiable\ninstitution, then they evince the sincerity of that belief by\nsustaining and perpetuating it at home. For this purpose, there is no\nnecessity of a crusade to propagate it, or sustain it elsewhere.\n\nLook at the relation which we bear to it, in another respect. I\nhave been taught from my earliest childhood that \u201call men are\ncreated equal.\u201d This has become in me not merely a conviction of\nthe understanding, but a sentiment of the heart. This maxim is my\nprinciple of action, whenever I am called upon to act; and it rises\nspontaneously to my contemplations when I speculate upon human duty.\nIt is the plainest corollary from the doctrine of the natural equality\nof man, that when I see a man, or a class of men, who are not equal\nto myself in opportunities, in gifts, in means of improvement, or in\nmotives and incitements to an elevated character and an exemplary\nlife,--I say, it is the plainest corollary that I should desire to\nelevate those men to an equality with myself. However far my own life\nmay fall below the standard of Christianity and gentlemanliness, yet\nI hold it to be clear, that no man is a Christian or a gentleman, who\ndoes not carry about an habitual frame of mind which prompts him, as\nfar as he has the means to do it, to instruct all the ignorance, to\nrelieve all the privations, to minister to all the pains, and to supply\nall the deficiencies of those with whom he meets in the daily walks\nof life; and, so far as he is a man who wields influence, possesses\nauthority, or exercises legislative power, he is bound to exert his\ngifts and his prerogatives for the amelioration and the improvement of\nhis fellow-men. This is the lowest standard of duty that any one who\naspires to be a Christian or a gentleman can set up for his guidance.\nNow take the case of a man from the north, who has incorporated these\nviews, or any similitude of these views, into his character, and who\nhas occasion to visit this District. Suppose him to be elected and\nsent here as a member of Congress, or to be appointed to a post in\nsome of the departments, or to visit this city on public business,\nor to come here from motives of curiosity; what is the sight which\nis inflicted upon him when he first sets his foot within this common\nproperty of the nation,--when he first enters this household, where\nthe head of the nation resides and directs? Sir, when he first alights\nfrom the cars that bring him within your limits and your jurisdiction,\nhe beholds a degraded caste,--a race of men whom God endowed with the\nfaculties of intelligence, but whom man has despoiled of the power of\nimproving those faculties, squalid in their garb, betraying ignorance\nin every word they utter, uncultivated in their manners and their\ntastes, fawning for a favor, instead of standing erect like men who are\nconscious of rights; or, if they have outgrown servile and sycophantic\nhabits, then erring on the side of impudence and insolence as much as\nthey erred before on that of cringing and servility. He repairs to\nhis lodgings, and there, too, all his moral sensibilities are shocked\nand outraged, by seeing a class of men and women hopelessly degraded,\ncut off by law and custom from all opportunity of emerging from their\ndebasement; whom no talent, taste, or virtue can ever redeem to the\npleasures and the rights of social intercourse. He sees men and women\nwho are not degraded on account of the services they perform,--for\n\u201chonor and shame from no condition rise,\u201d--but degraded by the motive\nand spirit from which the services are performed; men and women who\nhave no inducements to industry and frugality, for their earnings will\nall be seized by another; who have no incentives to self-respect, for\nthey can never emerge from their menial condition; who are bereaved of\nall the wonders and glories of knowledge, lest under its expansions\ntheir natures should burst the thraldom that enslaves them; and all\nwhose manly qualities, all whose higher faculties, therefore, are\nirredeemably and hopelessly crushed, extinguished, obliterated, so\nthat nothing but the animal, which the master can use for his selfish\npurposes, remains.\n\nMr. BRODHEAD, [of Pennsylvania.] Would you advance the slaves to an\nequal social and political condition with the white race?\n\nMr. MANN. I would give to every human being the best opportunity I\ncould to develop and cultivate the faculties which God has bestowed\nupon him, and which, therefore, he holds under a divine charter. I\nwould take from his neck the heel that has trodden him down; I would\ndispel from his mind the cloud that has shrouded him in moral night; I\nwould remove the obstructions that have forbidden his soul to aspire;\nand having done this, I would leave him, as I would leave every other\nman, to find his level,--to occupy the position to which he should be\nentitled by his intelligence and his virtues. I entertain no fears on\nthe much dreaded subject of amalgamation. Legal amalgamation between\nthe races will never take place, unless, in the changed condition of\nsociety, reasons shall exist to warrant and sanction it; and, in that\ncase, it will carry its own justification with it. But one thing I\ncould never understand,--why those who are so horror-stricken at the\nidea of _theoretic_ amalgamation, should exhibit to the world, in all\ntheir cities, on all their plantations, and in all their households,\nsuch numberless proofs of _practical_ amalgamation. I never could\nsee why those who arraign and condemn us at the north so vehemently,\nbecause, as they say, we obtrude our prying eyes into what they call\na \u201cdomestic\u201d or \u201cfireside\u201d institution, should have no hesitation in\nexhibiting to the world, through all their borders, ten thousand, and\nten times ten thousand, living witnesses, that they make it a bedside\ninstitution. Multitudes of the slaves of the south bear about upon\ntheir persons a brand as indelible as that of Cain; but the mark has\nbeen fastened upon them, not for their own crimes, but for the crimes\nof their fathers. In the complexion of the slave, we read the horrid\nhistory of the guilt of the enslavers. They demonstrate that the one\nrace has been to the other, not the object of benevolence, but the\nvictim of licentiousness.\n\nBut to resume. When the visitor to this city from the north leaves\nhis lodgings, and goes into the public streets, half the people whom\nhe meets there are of the same degraded class. Their tattered dress\nand unseemly manners denote congenital debasement. Their language\nproclaims their ignorance. If you have occasion to send them on an\nerrand, they cannot read the direction of a note, or a sign on a\nshopboard. Their ideas are limited within the narrowest range. They\nspeak the natural language of servility, and they wear the livery of\nan inferior condition. The conviction of their deplorable state is\nperpetually forced upon the mind. You do not need their color to remind\nyou of their degradation. Color, sir! They are oftentimes almost as\nwhite as ourselves. Sir, there is not a member of Congress who has\nnot frequently seen some of his fellow-members, in the spring of the\nyear, with a jaundiced skin more sallow and more yellow than that of\nmany a slave who is bought and sold and owned in this city. I have\nseen members of this House to whom I have been disposed to give a\nfriendly caution to keep their \u201cfree papers\u201d about their persons, lest\nsuddenly, on the presumption from color, they should be seized and sold\nfor runaway slaves. A yellow complexion here is so common a badge of\nslavery, that one whose skin is colored by disease is by no means out\nof danger. To enjoy security, a man must do more than take care of his\nlife; he must take care of his health. It is not enough to take heed\nto the meditations of his heart; he must see also to the secretions of\nhis liver.\n\nBut, sir, the stranger from the north visits the courts of justice\nin this city; he goes into halls set apart and consecrated, even\nin the dark and half-heathenish periods of English history, to the\ninvestigation of truth and the administration of justice; but if he\nsees any specimens of the colored race there, he sees them only as\nmenials. They cannot go there as witnesses. However atrocious the\nwrongs they may suffer in their own person and character, or in the\nperson and character of wife or children, they cannot appeal to the\ncourts to avenge or redress them. If introduced there at all, it is as\na bale of goods is introduced, or as an ox or a horse is brought within\ntheir purlieus, for the purpose of trying some disputed question of\nidentity or ownership. They go not as suitors, but as sacrifices. In\nthe courts of law; in the temples with which all our ideas of justice,\nof right between man and man, are associated; where truth goes to be\nvindicated, where innocence flies to be avenged,--in these courts,\nan entire portion of the human race are known, not as men, but as\nchattels, as cattle. Where, for them, is the Magna Charta that the old\nbarons wrested from King John? Is a whole race to be forever doomed to\nthis outlawry? Are they forever to wear a \u201cwolf\u2019s head,\u201d which every\nwhite man may cut off when he pleases? Sir, it cannot be that this\nstate of things will last forever. If all the rights of the black race\nare thus withheld from them, it is just as certain as the progress of\ntime that they, too, will have their Runnymede, their Declaration of\nIndependence, their Bunker Hill, and their Yorktown.\n\nSuch, sir, are the sights that molest us when we come here from the\nnorth,--that molest us in the hotels, that molest us in the streets,\nthat molest us in the courts, that molest us every where. But the\nweek passes away, and the Sabbath comes,--the day of rest from\nworldly toils, the day set apart for social worship, when men come\ntogether, and, by their mutual presence and assistance, lift up the\nhearts of each other in gratitude to God. But where now are the colored\npopulation, that seemed to be so numerous every where else? Have they\nno God? Have they no interest in the Savior\u2019s example and precepts?\nHave they no need of consolation, of faith in the Unseen, to help them\nbear up under the burdens and anxieties of life? Is their futurity so\nuncertain or so worthless that they need no guide to a better country,\nor that they can be turned off with a guide as ignorant and blind as\nthemselves?\n\nWe go from the courts and the churches to the schools. But no child\nin whose skin there is a shadow of a shade of African complexion is\nto be found there. The channels are so cut that all the sacred and\nhealing waters of knowledge flow, not to him, but by him. Sir, of all\nthe remorseless and wanton cruelties ever committed in this world of\nwickedness and woe, I hold that to be the most remorseless and wanton\nwhich shuts out from all the means of instruction a being whom God has\nendued with the capacities of knowledge, and inspired with the divine\ndesire _to know_. Strike blossom and beauty from the vernal season of\nthe year, and leave it sombre and cheerless; annihilate the harmonies\nwith which the birds of spring make vocal the field and the forest,\nand let exulting Nature become silent and desolate; dry up even those\nfountains of joy and gladsomeness that flow unbidden from the heart\nof childhood, and let the radiant countenance of youth become dull\nand stony like that of age;--do all this, if you will, but withhold\nyour profane hand from those creative sources of knowledge which\nshall give ever-renewing and ever-increasing delight through all the\ncycles of immortality, and which have the power to assimilate the\nfinite creature more and more nearly to the infinite Creator. Sir, he\nwho denies to children the acquisition of knowledge works devilish\nmiracles. If a man destroys my power of hearing, it is precisely the\nsame to me as though, leaving my faculty of hearing untouched, he had\nannihilated all the melodies and harmonies of the universe. If a man\nobliterates my power of vision, it is precisely the same to me as\nthough he had blotted out the light of the sun, and flung a pall of\ndarkness over all the beauties of the earth and the glories of the\nfirmament. So, if a usurper of human rights takes away from a child\nthe faculties of knowledge, or the means and opportunities to know,\nit is precisely the same to that child as though all the beauties\nand the wonders, all the magnificence and the glory, of the universe\nitself had been destroyed. To one who is permitted to know nothing of\nthe charms and sublimities of science, all science is non-existent.\nTo one who is permitted to know nothing of the historical past, all\nthe past generations of men are a nonentity. To one whose mind is\nnot made capacious of the future, and opened to receive it, all the\ngreat interests of futurity have less of reality than a dream. I say,\ntherefore, in strict, literal, philosophical truth, that whoever\ndenies knowledge to children works devilish miracles. Just so far\nas he disables and incapacitates them from knowing, he annihilates\nthe objects of knowledge; he obliterates history; he destroys the\ncountless materials in the natural world that might, through the medium\nof the useful arts, be converted into human comforts and blessings;\nhe suspends the sublime order and progression of Nature, and blots\nout those wonderful relations of cause and effect that belong to her\nunchangeable laws. Nay, there is a sense in which such an impious\ndestroyer of knowledge may be said to annihilate the attributes of\nthe Creator himself, for he does annihilate the capacity of forming a\nconception of that Creator, and thus prevents a soul that was created\nin the image of God from ever receiving the image it was created to\nreflect. Such a destroyer of knowledge dims the highest moral splendor\nof the universe. God is more to me than a grand and solitary Being,\nthough refulgent with infinite perfections. Contemplated as enthroned\nin the midst of his works, his spiritual offspring in all the grand\ncircuit of the worlds he has formed become a multiplying glass,\nreflecting back the Original in the profusion and countlessness of\ninfinity. But when the wickedness of man cuts off entire generations\nand whole races from the capacity of reflecting back this radiant\nimage of the Creator, then all that part of the universe where they\ndwell becomes black and revolting, and all that portion of the Mirror\nof Souls which was designed to reproduce and rekindle the glories of\nthe Eternal absorbs and quenches the rays which it should have caught\nand flamed with anew, and multiplied and returned. And still further,\nsir, I affirm, in words as true and literal as any that belong to\ngeometry, that the man who withholds knowledge from a child not only\nworks diabolical miracles for the destruction of good, but for the\ncreation of evil also. He who shuts out truth, by the same act opens\nthe door to all the error that supplies its place. Ignorance breeds\nmonsters to fill up all the vacuities of the soul that are unoccupied\nby the verities of knowledge. He who dethrones the idea of law, bids\nchaos welcome in its stead. Superstition is the mathematical complement\nof religious truth; and just so much less as the life of a human being\nis reclaimed to good, just so much more is it delivered over to evil.\nThe man or the institution, therefore, that withholds knowledge from\na child, or from a race of children, exercises the awful power of\nchanging the world in which they are to live, just as much as though\nhe should annihilate all that is most lovely and grand in this planet\nof ours, or transport the victim of his cruelty to some dark and frigid\nzone of the universe, where the sweets of knowledge are unknown,\nand the terrors of ignorance hold their undisputed and remorseless\nreign. Sir, the laws recorded in the statute books of the free states,\nproviding the means of education, and wooing the children to receive\nthe blessedness of true knowledge, are worthy to be inscribed as\nemblems and hieroglyphics upon the golden gates of heaven; but those\nlaws which deform the statute books of the slave states of this Union,\nmaking it a penal offence to educate human beings, and dooming immortal\nsouls to perpetual ignorance, would make the most appropriate adornment\nwherewith to embellish with inscription and bas-relief the pillars of\nthe council hall of Pandemonium.\n\nSir, if there is any thing for which I would go back to childhood,\nand live this weary life over again, it is for the burning, exalting,\ntransporting thrill and ecstasy with which the young faculties hold\ntheir earliest communion with knowledge. When the panting and thirsting\nsoul first drinks the delicious waters of truth; when the moral and\nintellectual tastes and desires first seize the fragrant fruits that\nflourish in the garden of knowledge; then does the child catch a\nglimpse and foretaste of heaven. He regales himself upon the nectar\nand ambrosia of the gods. Late in life, this zest is rarely if ever\nfelt so keenly as at the beginning. Such ought not to be the fact;\nbut our bodies are so systematically abused by transgressions of the\nlaws of health and diet, that the sympathizing soul loses the keenness\nof its early relish. Even then, however, age has its compensations.\nThe old may experience the delights of learning, anew, in the reflex\npleasure of seeing children learn. But these lofty and enduring\nsatisfactions,--this pleasure,--it is no extravagance to say, this\nbliss of knowledge, both for parent and child, is withheld, cruelly,\nremorselessly withheld, from the slave. We know all this; we see its\nimbruting consequences; and we are compelled to see them, because the\ngovernment will uphold slavery here.\n\nSuch, sir, is the spectacle which is presented to all northern men,\nwhenever for duty, for business, or for pleasure, they visit this\nmetropolis. Wherever we go, wherever we are, the odious, abhorred\nconcomitants of this institution are forced upon our observation, and\nbecome a perpetual bitterness in the cup of life. The whole system,\nwith all its adjuncts, is irreconcilably repugnant to our ideas of\njustice. We believe it to be a denial of the rights of man; we believe\nit to be contrary to the law of God. Whether these feelings wear away\nby the lapse of time, and the indurating power of custom, I know not;\nbut, for one, I hope never to become hardened and callous to the sight;\nfor it is a case where I could experience no mitigation of my pains,\nwithout a corresponding debasement of my nature.\n\nNow, in all sincerity, and in all kindness, I ask our southern brethren\nwhat there is to them so valuable and desirable in retaining slavery\nhere, as to be a compensation for all the pain and evil which its\nexistence inflicts upon the north? Surely its abandonment here would be\na small thing to them, while its continuance is a great thing to us. It\nis a great thing to us, because we are held responsible for it by the\nwhole civilized world. This District is the common possession of the\nnation. Congress has power of exclusive legislation over it. Congress,\ntherefore, is responsible for its institutions, as a man is responsible\nfor the condition of his house, and the customs of his family. The\ngeneral government is not responsible for the local institutions of\nMassachusetts or of Mississippi. Each of them has supreme control over\nits own domestic concerns. They may honorably discharge their debts or\nrepudiate them; they may build up institutions of charity, of learning,\nand of religion; or they may suffer inhumanity and violence, ignorance\nand paganism, to prevail; and we, here, cannot help it, and therefore\nare not responsible for it. But it is wholly otherwise with regard to\nthe institutions that prevail in this District; their honor, or their\ninfamy, attaches to us. We are judged by them the world round. We of\nthe Northern States feel it at home; we are made to feel it still more\ndeeply abroad. Throughout every nation in Europe, it is the common\nlanguage and the common sentiment, that an institution which exists\nin one half of the states of this Union is in flagrant contrast and\ncontradiction to the theory of our government. When we are reminded of\nthis,--whether in a kindly and expostulatory manner by our friends, or\nin an offensive and taunting one by our enemies,--we of the north can\nsay, at least, that we are not responsible for it. We can explain why\nwe are no more amenable for the local laws of Arkansas or Missouri than\nwe are for the Catholic religion in Mexico, or for the revolutions in\nthe South American republics. This is our answer. But they still retort\nupon us, and say, There is one spot for which you are responsible,--the\nDistrict of Columbia. You could abolish slavery there if you would;\nyou do not; and therefore the sin of its continuance is yours, as much\nas if it existed in New York or Massachusetts. Now I ask southern\ngentlemen how it is consistent with magnanimity and honor, with a\nfraternal feeling towards the north, for them to force the odium of\nthis inconsistency upon us? Surely they gain no credit, no character by\nit; we lose both credit and character. The existence of slavery here is\nno benefit to them; it is of unspeakable injury to us. They would lose\nnothing by surrendering it; we suffer every thing by its continuance.\nA change would work them no injury; it would be invaluable to us. I ask\nthem, on principles of common fairness and good neighborhood, that they\nshould courteously and voluntarily yield us this point, which would\nallay so much bitterness and heart-burning at the north, and which,\naccording to their view of the matter, would fill the south with the\nsweet savor of a generous deed.\n\nI know, sir, that some southern gentleman profess to see a principle\nin such a course that debars them from adopting it. They say that\nif slavery in this District should be surrendered, it would only\nbe giving the adversary a vantage ground, on which he could plant\nhimself to attack slavery in the states. I dissent from this view\nentirely. Has not the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. GIDDINGS,] who is\nsupposed to represent the extreme anti-slavery views which exist in\nthis House,--has he not declared here, a hundred times over, that\nhe disclaims all right, that he renounces all legal authority and\npretext, under the constitution, to lay the hands of this government,\nfor the purpose of freeing him, on a single slave in the slave states?\nBut clearly the principle is different in regard to slaves in this\nDistrict, where we possess the power of \u201cexclusive legislation.\u201d But\nif gentlemen at the south see a principle which debars them from\nsurrendering slavery in this District, we at the north see a principle\nwhich prompts us, and will prompt us, until the work is accomplished,\nto renewed exertions. On the same ground on which slavery in this\nDistrict has been defended for the last fifty years, it can be defended\nfor the next fifty, or the next five hundred years; it can be defended\nforever. This idea of perpetual slavery in the very household of a\nrepublic of freemen is not to be tolerated, and cannot be tolerated.\nBut I will not dwell on this topic further. I close this branch of my\nargument with a proposition which seems to me but fair and equitable.\nThe south has held this metropolis as a slave capital for fifty years.\nLet it now be held as a free capital for fifty years; and if, at the\nend of this period, adequate reasons can be shown, before any nation,\ncivilized or uncivilized, upon the face of the earth, for restoring it\nto slavery again, I, for one, should have no fears of entering into an\nengagement upon such a condition, that it should again become \u201ca land\nof Egypt and a house of bondage.\u201d\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nNotwithstanding I have dwelt so long upon the social and moral\naspects of this subject, I am still tempted not to forego that which\nwas my principal object in rising, namely, to submit an argument\non the question of the legality or constitutionality of slavery in\nthis District. I have bestowed much careful attention upon this\nsubject, with the sincerest desire of arriving at true, legal, and\nconstitutional results. I submit my views with deference, because I\nknow they are in conflict with the views of others, for whose knowledge\nand abilities I have a profound respect.\n\nThe legality of slavery in the District of Columbia has been assumed,\nand practically acquiesced in, for fifty years. Had the question\nof its validity been raised, and argued on the principles of the\nconstitution, immediately after the creation of the District, I believe\nthis territory would have been declared free soil. In my conscientious\nopinion, slavery exists in this District only by original usurpation\nand subsequent acquiescence. If so, Congress cannot be too speedily\ninvoked to abdicate the power it has usurped.\n\n1. The first position I take is this: _That slavery has no legal\nexistence any where, unless by force of positive law._\n\nIf any man claims authority over the body, mind, and soul of one of\nhis fellow-men, and claims this authority not only for the whole life\nof his victim, but a like authority over all his descendants, there\nis no part of the civilized world where he will not be required to\nshow some positive law, authorizing the power and the bondage. If the\nclaimant says, \u201cI am stronger, or I am wiser than he;\u201d or, \u201cI have an\nAnglo-Saxon brain, while he has only an African brain;\u201d or, \u201cmy skin\nis white, and his skin is not white;\u201d or, \u201cI descended from Shem, and\nhe from Ham; and, therefore, he is my slave,\u201d--there is not a court\nin Christendom, which, though it may admit the fact, will ratify the\ninference. If the claimant affirms that it is _morally_ right for\nhim to seize his fellow-man and reduce him to slavery; if he brings\nthe Bible into court as his law book, and cites Abraham and Isaac,\nand Jacob and Paul, as his authorities; still, I say, there is not a\ncourt in Christendom that will not deny the validity of the title, and\nrebuke the arrogance of the demand.[6] Positive law, then, is the only\nfoundation of slavery. The authorities are numerous, if not numberless,\nto establish this position. I shall not encumber this argument by\nciting many of them. The few which I shall cite will contain a\nreference to the rest.\n\nThe grand reason against slavery given by Lord Mansfield, in Somerset\u2019s\ncase, was, \u201cthat it is so intrinsically wrong that it is incapable of\nbeing introduced into any country, on any reasons moral or political,\nand can only stand on positive law.\u201d 20 State Trials, 1.\n\nChief Justice Marshall says, \u201cThat it [slavery] is contrary to the law\nof nature, will scarcely be denied. That every man has a natural right\nto the fruits of his own labor, is generally admitted; and that no\nother person can rightfully deprive him of those fruits and appropriate\nthem against his will, seems to be the necessary result of this\nadmission.\u201d Antelope, 10 Wheat., 120.\n\n\u201cThe first objection,\u201d says Mr. Justice Best, in the case of Forbes\nand Cochrane, \u201cwhich occurs to me, in this case, is that it does not\nappear, in the special case, that the right to slaves exists in East\nFlorida. _That right is not a general but a local right_; it ought,\ntherefore, to have been shown that it existed in Florida, and that the\ndefendants knew of its existence. Assuming, however, that those facts\ndid appear, still, under the circumstances of this case, this action\ncould not be maintained.\n\n\u201cThe question is, Were these persons slaves at the time when Sir\nG. Cockburn refused to do the act which he was desired to do? I am\ndecidedly of opinion that they were no longer slaves. The moment they\nput their feet on board of a _British_ man-of-war, not lying within the\nwaters of East Florida, (where undoubtedly the laws of that country\nwould prevail,) those persons who had before been slaves were free....\nSlavery is a local law, and, therefore, if a man wishes to preserve his\nslaves, let him attach them to him by affection, or make fast the bars\nof their prison, or rivet well their chains; _for the instant they get\nbeyond the limits where slavery is recognized by the local law, they\nhave broken their chains, they have escaped from their prison, and are\nfree_.\u201d 2 Barn. & Cres. 466-7; _Forbes_ vs. _Cochrane_, S. C., 3 Dowl.\n& Ryland, 679.\n\n\u201cI am of opinion,\u201d says Holroyd, J., in the same case, \u201cthat according\nto the principles of the English law the right to slaves, even in a\ncountry where such rights are recognized by law, must be considered as\nfounded, not upon the law of nature, but upon the particular law of\nthat country.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe law of slavery is a law _in invitum_; _and when a party gets\nout of the territory where it prevails_, and out of the power of his\nmaster, and gets under the protection of another power, without any\nwrongful act done by the party giving that protection, the right of the\nmaster, _which is founded on the municipal law of the particular place\nonly_, does not continue, and there is no right of action against a\nparty who merely receives the slave in that country, without doing any\nwrongful act.\u201d\n\nThe definition of slavery given by the Roman law implies that it is\nlocal: _Servitus est constitutio juris gentium, qua quis dominio\nalieno_, CONTRA NATURAM, _subjicitur_. _Commonwealth_ vs. _Aves_, 18\nPick. Rep., 193; _Lunsford_ vs. _Coquillon_, 14 Martin\u2019s Rep. 402.\n\u201cThe relation of owner and slave is a creation of the municipal law.\u201d\n_Rankin_ vs. _Lydia_, 3 Marshall, 470, Ky.; _Butler_ vs. _Hopper_, 1\nWash. C. C. Rep. 499; _Ex parte Simmons_, 4 Wash. C. C. 296; _Marie\nLouise_ vs. _Marot et al._, 9 Curry\u2019s Louisiana Rep. 473.\n\nThis point may be presented in another light. By the law of nature all\nmen are free. But in some governments the law of the state, upheld by\nthe power of the state, overrides the law of nature, and enslaves a\nportion of the people. The law of nature recedes before this legalized\nviolence; but it recedes no farther than the legalized violence drives\nit back. Within the jurisdictional limits of such states, then,\nslavery is made _legal_, though it is not made _right_. But if a slave\npasses out of the jurisdiction where violence overpowers right, into a\njurisdiction where right is superior to violence, he is then free; not\nbecause there is any change in the man, but because there is a change\nin the laws to which the man is subject.\n\nThere may, however, be some further positive law which, though it does\nnot authorize the buying or selling of a slave, still does provide\nthat an escaped or escaping slave may be recaptured and redelivered\ninto bondage. Such is the third paragraph of the second section of the\nfourth article of the constitution of the United States. Such, too, is\nthe act of Congress of February 12, 1793, providing for the recapture\nof fugitive slaves. This, however, would not be without positive law.\n\nThe debates in all the conventions for adopting the constitution\nof the United States, proceed upon the ground that slavery depends\nupon positive law for its existence. If it did not,--if a man who\nhas a legal right to a slave in Virginia, has a legal right to him\nanywhere,--then the provision in the constitution, and the act of 1793\nfor recapturing fugitive slaves, would have been unnecessary.\n\nOn the south side of a boundary line, then, slavery may exist by force\nof positive law; while, on the north side, in the absence of any such\nlaw, slavery is unlawful. A slave passing out of a jurisdiction where\nslavery is legalized, into a jurisdiction where it is not, becomes\nfree. It is as though a man should migrate from one of those South\nSea islands, where cannibalism is legalized, and where the public\nauthorities, according to the reports of travellers, not only condemn\nand execute a criminal, _but dine on him, after he is executed_,--it\nis, I say, as though the subject of such a government should migrate\ninto one where cannibalism is not lawful, and where, therefore, though\nhe should be condemned and executed for crime, it would be no part of\nthe sentence or the ceremony that he should be eaten by his judges. He\nis out of cannibal jurisdiction.\n\nThe right of freedom is a natural right. It is a positive existence.\nIt is a moral entity. Like the right to life, it pertains, by the law\nof nature and of God, to every human being. This moral right continues\nto exist until it is abolished. Some act abolishing this freedom, then,\nmust be proved; it must be proved affirmatively, or else the fact\nof freedom remains. This is the solid and indestructible ground of\nthe maxim, that slavery can exist only by positive law; that it is a\n_local_ institution; that the right of freedom must first be abolished\nbefore slavery can exist.\n\n2. My second position is this: _That a man\u2019s legal condition may be\nchanged by a change in the government over him, while he remains in the\nsame place, just as effectually as it can be changed by his removal\nto another place, and putting himself under another government._ The\ninhabitants of the North American colonies did not change their place\nof residence when they passed from under the government of Great\nBritain, and came under the government of the confederation. The\nMexicans, inhabiting the then states of California and New Mexico, did\nnot change their place of residence, when, on the thirtieth day of May\nlast, they ceased to be citizens of the Mexican republic, and became\ncitizens, or _quasi_ citizens of the United States. Their political\nrelations were changed, not by their removal from under the canopy\nof one government and placing themselves under the canopy of another\ngovernment, but by the withdrawal of one government from over them, and\nby the extension to them of certain _political_ rights and capacities\nunder another government. Before this thirtieth day of May, they could\nhave committed treason against Mexico, but not after it. Before it,\nthey could not commit treason against the United States; but when\nthey shall be citizens of the Union, they can. These vital changes in\ntheir relations are without any change in their residence. Within my\nrecollection, an old gentleman died in Massachusetts, who had lived in\nfive different towns, but still remained where he was born, like one\nof the old oak trees on the homestead. The part of the original town\nwhere he was born had been set off and incorporated into a new town;\nand that part of the second town where he lived, into a third; and so\non, until he died in the fifth town without any change of domicile.\nNow, this man lived under the jurisdiction and by-laws of five towns,\nas they were successively incorporated over him, just as much as though\nhe had struck his tent five times, and placed himself, by successive\nmigrations, under five different municipal jurisdictions.\n\nA similar thing must have happened to thousands of our fellow-citizens\nof the Union. Some of them at first lived under a foreign government;\nthen under one territorial government; then under another; and at\nlast have become citizens of a state, without any change of domicile.\nIndeed, it would seem that nothing can be clearer than the proposition,\nwhether regarded as a legal or a political one, that the laws and the\njurisdiction may be changed over a man who continues to reside in the\nsame place, just as effectually and as completely as a man may change\nthe laws and jurisdiction over himself by removing to a different\nplace. In many cases, the former works a more thorough change than\nthe latter. The laws of Great Britain do not acknowledge the right\nof self-expatriation; while, at the same time, it is held, that the\ninhabitants of a foreign province, incorporated into the kingdom,\nchange their allegiance without changing their residence.\n\n3. My third proposition is this: _That the jurisdiction under which the\ninhabitants of what is now the District of Columbia lived, prior to the\ncession of the District by Maryland to the United States, was utterly\nand totally changed, at the moment of the cession,--at the moment when,\naccording to the provisions of the constitution, they ceased to be\ncitizens of the state of Maryland, and became citizens of the District\nof Columbia._\n\nBy the 17th paragraph, (Hickey\u2019s Constitution,) of the 8th section\nof the 1st article, it is provided that Congress shall have power\n\u201cto exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such\nDistrict, (not exceeding ten miles square,) as may, by cession of\nparticular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of\nthe government of the United States.\u201d\n\nCongress, then, has the power of sole and exclusive legislation, \u201cin\nall cases whatsoever,\u201d in regard to the District of Columbia. What\nis the meaning of the word \u201cexclusive\u201d in this connection? It cannot\nmean _absolute_ and _uncontrolled_; for, if it did, it would make\nCongress as sovereign as the Russian autocrat. It means that no other\ngovernment, no other body of men whatever, shall have concurrent power\nof legislation over the District; nor, indeed, any subordinate power,\nexcept what may be derived from Congress. Over every man who is a\ncitizen of one of the United States, there are two jurisdictions,--the\njurisdiction of the general government, and the jurisdiction of the\nstate government. There are two governments that have the power to\nlegislate for him; but there is only one power,--the Congress of the\nUnited States,--that can legislate for a citizen of the District of\nColumbia.\n\nIn _Kendall_ vs. _The United States_, 12 Peters, 524, it is said,\n\u201cThere is in the District of Columbia no division of powers between the\ngeneral and state governments. Congress has the entire control over the\nDistrict, for every purpose of government.\u201d\n\nSo it has been held that a justice of the peace in the District of\nColumbia is an officer of the government of the United States, and is\ntherefore exempt from militia duty. _Wise_ vs. _Withers_, 3 Cranch,\n331; 1 Cond. Rep. 552.\n\nA citizen of the District of Columbia is not a citizen of any one\nof the United States. _Hepburn et al._ vs. _Ellery_, 2 Cranch, 445;\n_Westcott\u2019s Lessee_ vs. _Inhabitants ----_, Peters, C. C. R. 45.\n\nUp to the time of the cession, the inhabitants of this District were\nunder two jurisdictions--that of Maryland and that of Congress;\nbut after the cession, under that of Congress alone. Now, when the\ninhabitants of this District passed out of the jurisdiction of\nMaryland, and came under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress, let us\nsee what was the effect of such change of jurisdiction upon them.\n\nIn the act of Congress of 1790, c. 28, sect. 1, which was an act for\nestablishing the seat of government of the United States, there is\nthe following clause: \u201c_Provided, nevertheless_, That the operation\nof the laws of the state [of Maryland] within such District shall not\nbe affected by this acceptance, _until the time fixed for the removal\nof the government thereto, and until Congress shall otherwise by law\nprovide_.\u201d\n\nHere, then, Congress _expressly_ provided and contracted with the state\nof Maryland, that the laws of Maryland in this District should not be\ninterfered with until the removal of the seat of government to this\nplace; and Congress likewise _impliedly_ provided and contracted, that\nwhen the seat of government should be removed to this place, it would\ndischarge the duty imposed upon it by the constitution of the United\nStates, and would assume and exercise the \u201cexclusive legislation\u201d\nprovided for in that instrument. This act of Congress was approved on\nthe 16th of July, 1790.\n\nBy the Maryland laws of 1791, c. 45, sect. 2, that state ceded to the\nUnited States the territory which now constitutes the District of\nColumbia, and the words of the cession are these: \u201cIn full and absolute\nright, as well of soil as of person, residing or to reside thereon,\u201d\n&c. ... provided that the jurisdiction of the laws of Maryland \u201cshall\nnot cease or determine _until Congress shall by law provide for the\ngovernment thereof_.\u201d\n\nThe state of the case, then, was simply this: 1. The constitution\ngave Congress power of \u201cexclusive legislation\u201d over such district\nas might be ceded for the seat of government. 2. Congress, by the\nact of 1790, above referred to, proposed to the state of Maryland to\naccept a portion of her territory for this purpose, but engaged not to\ninterfere with her laws until after it had taken actual possession of\nthe ceded territory. 3. Maryland accepted the proposition, rehearsing\nthe condition in these words; namely, that \u201cthe laws of Maryland shall\nnot cease or determine until Congress shall by law provide for the\ngovernment thereof.\u201d\n\nBy the 6th section of the act of 1790, c. 28, Congress provided that it\nwould remove to this District, and make this the seat of government,\non the first Monday of December, 1800. It did so; and now its express\nduty under the constitution, and its implied promise to the state of\nMaryland, were to be fulfilled, by exercising \u201cexclusive legislation\u201d\nover this District.\n\nIn fulfilment of this duty and promise, Congress, on the 27th of\nFebruary, 1801, by the act of 1801, c. 15, proceeded to legislate for\nthe District of Columbia; and, in the first section of that act, it\nprovided as follows:--\n\n \u201c_Be it enacted, &c._, That the laws of the state of Virginia, as they\n now exist, shall be and continue in force in that part of the District\n of Columbia which was ceded by the said state to the United States,\n and by them accepted for the permanent seat of government; and that\n the laws of the state of Maryland, as they now exist, shall be and\n continue in force in that part of the said District which was ceded by\n that state to the United States, and by them accepted, as aforesaid.\u201d\n\nBy this act, then, Congress assumed to exercise, and did exercise, that\nexclusive legislation over the District of Columbia which had been\nprovided for by the constitution.\n\nThat portion of the District which was ceded to Congress by Virginia,\nhaving been receded to that state by the act of Congress of July 9,\n1846, (stat. 1846, c. 35,) all that relates to it may, for the purposes\nof this argument, be laid out of the question.\n\nOn the 27th day of February, 1801, then, the laws of Maryland, _as\nsuch_, were abrogated in this District. The legislative power of\nCongress was _de facto_ exclusive. All legislative power previously\npossessed by Maryland over it, then ceased. The connection of\nMaryland with this District, as a part of its former territory, and\noccupied by its former citizens, was dissolved. It had no longer any\nmore legislative power over the District than Maine or Georgia had.\nHistorically, we may talk about the laws of Maryland, as they once\nexisted here; but practically, and as a matter of strict law and fact,\nher laws were no longer known within the District. The laws which\ngoverned the people of this District after the 27th day of February,\n1801, were the laws of Congress, and not the laws of Maryland.\n\nTo show that this part of the District passed out from under the\ngovernment of Maryland, and came under the government of the United\nStates, I refer to _Reilly, appellant_, vs. _Lamar et al._, 2 Cranch,\n344; 1 Cond. Rep. 322, where it is said, \u201cBy the separation of the\nDistrict of Columbia from the State of Maryland, the residents in that\npart of Maryland which became a part of the District, ceased to be\ncitizens of the state.\u201d It was held, in that case, that a citizen of\nthe District of Columbia could not be discharged by the insolvent law\nof Maryland.\n\nA citizen of the District of Columbia cannot maintain an action in the\ncircuit court of the United States out of the District, he not being\na citizen of the state within the meaning of the provision of the law\nof the United States regulating the jurisdiction of the courts of the\nUnited States. _Hepburn et al._ vs. _Ellzey_, 2 Cranch, 445; 1 Cond.\nRep. 444. See also _Loughborough_ vs. _Blake_, 5 Wheat. 317, and _Levy\nCourt of Washington_ vs. _Ringgold_, 5 Peters, 451.\n\n4. The next point of inquiry is, _What is the legal force and effect,\nupon the subject of slavery, of the act of Congress of 1801, before\ncited?_ Its words are, \u201cThat the laws of the state of Maryland, as they\nnow exist, shall be continued in force in that part of said District\nwhich was ceded by that state to the United States,\u201d &c. And here, I\nacknowledge that the operation of this clause is precisely the same as\nthough Congress had transcribed all the Maryland laws, word for word,\nand letter for letter, into its own statute book, with the clause\nprefixed, \u201cBe it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of\nthe United States of America in Congress assembled,\u201d and the President\nof the United States had affixed his signature thereto. I acknowledge\nfurther, that the laws of Maryland had legalized slavery within the\nstate of Maryland, and had defined what classes of persons might be\nheld as slaves therein.\n\nBut it by no means follows, because Congress proposed to re\u00ebnact, in\nterms, for this District, all the laws of Maryland, that, therefore, it\ndid re\u00ebnact them. It does not follow, that because two legislatures use\nthe same words, that the words must necessarily have the same effect.\nIt makes all the difference in the world, whether words are used by\none possessed of power, or by one devoid of power. Congress might pass\na law in precisely the same words as those used by the Parliament of\nGreat Britain, and yet the law of Congress be invalid and inoperative,\nwhile the act of Parliament would be valid and binding. We have a\nwritten constitution; Great Britain has no written constitution. The\nBritish Parliament, on many subjects, has an ampler jurisdiction than\nthe American Congress. The law of Congress might be unconstitutional\nand void, while that of the British Parliament, framed in precisely the\nsame language, might be constitutional and binding.\n\nSo the law of Maryland might be valid under the constitution of\nMaryland, and, therefore, binding upon the citizens of Maryland; while\nthe law of Congress, though framed in precisely the same words, would\nbe repugnant to the constitution of the United States, and therefore\nhave no validity.\n\nNow this is precisely the case before us. Congress, in attempting\nto re\u00ebnact the Maryland laws, to uphold slavery in this District,\ntranscended the limits of its constitutional power. It acted\nunconstitutionally. It acted in plain contravention of some of the\nplainest and most obvious principles consecrated by the constitution.\nIf so, no one will dispute that its act is void. I do not deny, then,\nthat Congress used words of sufficient amplitude to cover slavery; but\nwhat I deny is, that it had any power to give legal force to those\nwords.\n\n5. My next proposition, therefore, is this: _That as Congress can do\nnothing excepting what it is empowered to do by the constitution, and\nas the constitution does not empower it to establish slavery here, it\ncannot establish slavery here, nor continue it._\n\nWhere is there any _express_ power given to Congress by the\nconstitution to establish slavery? Where is the article, section, or\nclause? I demand to have the title shown. Thousands of human beings\nare not to be robbed of all their dearest rights, and they and their\nchildren, forever, by strained constitutions, or apocryphal authority,\ndoomed to bondage. Will those who say that Congress cannot establish a\nbanking institution by construction, nor aid internal improvements,\nnor enact a tariff,--will they say that Congress can make a man a\nslave, and all his posterity slaves, by construction?\n\nNor can any power to establish slavery be deduced from the 18th clause\nof the 8th section of the 1st article of the constitution, which gives\nCongress power \u201cto make all laws which shall be necessary and proper\nfor carrying into execution\u201d the powers that are granted.\n\nWhat power is granted to Congress, for the exercise of which the\nestablishment of slavery in this District is a necessary means or\na preliminary? Congress has power to lay and collect taxes; to\nborrow money; to regulate commerce; to establish uniform rules of\nnaturalization; to coin money; to punish counterfeiters; to establish\npost offices and post roads; to promote the progress of science and\nthe arts; to establish courts; to define and punish piracies on the\nhigh seas; to declare war; to raise and support armies; to provide and\nmaintain a navy; to organize and maintain a militia; and so forth,\nand so forth. But to what one of all these powers is the power to\nestablish slavery in the District of Columbia a necessary incident? If\nslavery in the District of Columbia were to cease to-day, could not the\ngovernment continue to exercise every function which it has heretofore\nexercised? If so, then the existence of slavery in this District is not\n\u201cnecessary\u201d to the exercise of any of the expressly granted powers. I\ncall upon any gentleman to name any one power of this government which\ncannot be exercised, which must necessarily cease, if slavery should\ncease to be, in this District of Columbia? \u201cI pause for a reply.\u201d\n\nWell, then, if a power to establish slavery in this District is not\namong the granted powers, and if it is not necessary for the exercise\nof any one of the granted powers, then it is--no where;--it does not\nexist at all. No power of Congress, then, exists, either for the\ncreation or for the continuance of slavery in this District; and all\nthe legislation of Congress upon this subject is beyond or against the\nconstitution.\n\nLet me illustrate this in another way. Suppose there had been a\nreligious establishment in Maryland at the time of the cession;\nsuppose, under the auspices of Lord Baltimore, the Catholic religion\nhad been established as the religion of the state; and that, in order\nto punish heresy and secure conformity to the religion of the state,\nan inquisition had been founded, and that the seat of that inquisition\nhad been within the limits of the District of Columbia, at the time\nof the cession; could Congress, in the absence of all express or\nimplied authority on the subject of establishing a state religion,\nhave upheld the Catholic religion here, and appointed the officers of\nthe inquisition to administer it? The idea is abhorrent to the whole\nspirit of the constitution. But Congress had as much power to establish\na national religion here, in the absence of all express or implied\nauthority to do so, as to establish slavery here.\n\nCongress, then, does not and cannot legalize slavery in this District.\nIt found slavery in existence in the states; and it does not abolish\nit, or interfere with it, because it has no power of \u201cexclusive\nlegislation\u201d in them. But Congress has as much right to go into any\nstate and abolish slavery there, as any state, even Virginia or\nMaryland, has to come into this District with its laws and establish\nslavery here. I suppose that no jurist will contend that Congress could\nhave passed the act of 1793, for the recapture of fugitive slaves, had\nit not been for the third clause in the second section of the fourth\narticle of the constitution, which provides for the redelivery of a\nfugitive slave, on the claim of his master. By this article in the\nconstitution, the case of _fugitive_ slaves only is provided for. If a\nmaster voluntarily carries his slave into a free state, and the slave\ndeparts from his possession, he cannot reclaim him. Why not? Why cannot\nCongress pass a law, that if a man takes a dozen slaves to Boston, and\nthey there see fit to strike for wages, and to leave his possession\nbecause their terms are not complied with,--why is it, I ask, that\nCongress cannot pass a law authorizing their seizure and delivery into\nthe master\u2019s hands? The reason is, that the constitution has conferred\nupon Congress no such express power, nor is any such power implied as\nbeing necessary to the exercise of any power that is expressed. And\nif Congress cannot so much as restore a slave to a master, who has\nvoluntarily carried him into a free state, how can it continue slavery\nin this District, after Maryland has ceded it to this government,\nwhose fundamental, organic law gives it no power to create or continue\nslavery here?\n\nSuppose Maryland had ceded her share of the District to Massachusetts,\nwould not every slave in it have been instantaneously free by the\nconstitution of Massachusetts? They would have been transferred to a\nfree jurisdiction,--just as much as an individual owner of a slave\ntransfers him to a free jurisdiction, when he voluntarily takes him to\nthe north. The legal existence of slavery was annulled in this District\nwhen Congress exercised its \u201cexclusive\u201d power over it, just as much as\nthe debtor\u2019s right to be discharged under the Maryland bankrupt law was\nannulled.\n\nBut I go further than this; and I say that the constitution not only\ndoes not empower Congress to establish or continue slavery in this\nDistrict, but again and again, by the strongest implications possible,\nit prohibits the exercise of such a power.\n\nIn regard to this whole matter of slavery, the constitution touches the\nsubject with an averted face. The abhorred word \u201c_slave_\u201d is nowhere\nmentioned in it. The constitution is ashamed to utter such a name.\nThe country, coming fresh from that baptism of fire,--the American\nRevolution,--would not profane its lips with this unhallowed word.\nHence, circumlocution is resorted to. It seeks to escape a guilty\nconfession. Like a culprit, in whom some love of character still\nsurvives, it speaks of its offence without calling it by name. It uses\nthe reputable and honorable word \u201cpersons,\u201d instead of the accursed\nword \u201cslaves.\u201d As the Tyrian queen, about to perpetrate a deed which\nwould consign her character to infamy, called it by the sacred name of\n\u201cmarriage,\u201d and committed it,--\n\n    \u201c_Hoc pr\u00e6texit nomine culpam_;\u201d\n\nso the constitution, about to recognize the most guilty and cruel\nof all relations between man and man, sought to avert its eyes from\nthe act, and to pacify the remonstrances of conscience against every\nparticipation in the crime, by hiding the deed under a reputable word.\n\nBut let us look to the prohibitions of the constitution; for I\nmaintain that there is not only no power, express or implied, in the\nconstitution authorizing Congress to create or continue slavery in this\nDistrict, but that it is debarred and prohibited from doing so, again\nand again.\n\nI suppose no one will deny that the positive prohibitions, against\nthe exercise of certain enumerated powers, apply to Congress, when\nlegislating for this District, just as much as when legislating for\nthe union at large. This doctrine has recently been strongly asserted\nby Mr. Calhoun in the Senate of the United States; and, as I would\ngladly produce conviction in southern minds, I make use of this\nsouthern authority. He affirms that Congress, in legislating for\nthe territories, \u201cis subject to many and important restrictions and\nconditions, of which some are expressed and others implied. Among\nthe former may be classed all the general and absolute prohibitions\nof the constitution; that is, all those which prohibit the exercise\nof certain powers under any circumstances. In this class is included\nthe prohibition of granting titles of nobility; passing _ex post\nfacto_ laws and bills of attainder; the suspension of the writ of\n_habeas corpus_, except in certain cases; making laws respecting the\nestablishment of religion, or its free exercise, and every other of\nlike description.\u201d\n\nWill any man say that Congress can pass an _ex post facto_ law for this\nDistrict, and defend itself by referring to its power of \u201cexclusive\nlegislation\u201d over it? Can Congress pass a bill of attainder corrupting\nthe blood of an inhabitant of this District, or repeal or suspend\nat any time his right to a writ of _habeas corpus_, or establish a\nreligion here, or interdict the free exercise thereof? No jurist, no\nstatesman, will pretend it.\n\nBut there is another prohibition in the constitution every whit as full\nand explicit as any of these. The fifth article of amendment declares\nthat \u201cno person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property,\nwithout due process of law.\u201d\n\nHere the constitution uses the word \u201cperson,\u201d--the most comprehensive\nword it could find. \u201cNo PERSON shall be deprived of life, liberty,\nor property, without due process of law.\u201d Now, what does this word\n\u201cperson\u201d mean? Or who, under the constitution, is such a \u201cperson\u201d as\ncannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property, by virtue of an act\nof Congress, _without due process of law_? Let us take our definition\nof the word \u201c_person_\u201d from the constitution itself. \u201cNo _person_\nshall be a representative, who shall not have attained the age of\ntwenty-five years,\u201d &c., (see 2d clause of the 2d section of the 1st\narticle.) \u201cRepresentatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned\namong the several states which may be included within this union,\naccording to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by\nadding to the whole number of free _persons_, including those bound to\nservice for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three\nfifths of all other _persons_.\u201d (3d clause of the same section.) \u201cNo\n_person_ shall be a senator who shall not have attained the age of\nthirty years,\u201d &c. (1st art., 3d section, 3d clause.) \u201cNo _person_\nshall be convicted [of an impeachable offence, by the Senate] without\nthe concurrence of two thirds.\u201d (1st art., 3d section, 6th clause.)\n\u201cNo _person_ holding any office under the United States, shall be\na member of either House, during his continuance in office.\u201d (1st\nart., 6th section, 2d clause.) \u201cThe migration or importation of such\n_persons_ as any of the states now existing shall think proper to\nadmit, shall not be prohibited,\u201d--\u201cbut a tax, or duty, may be imposed\non such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each _person_,\u201d &c.\n(1st art., 9th section, 1st clause.) \u201cNo _person_ holding any office\nof profit or trust,\u201d \u201cshall accept any present,\u201d &c. (1st art., 9th\nsection, 8th clause.) \u201cNo _person_ holding an office of trust or profit\nunder the United States, shall be appointed an elector.\u201d (2d art.,\n1st section, 2d clause.) \u201cThe electors shall meet in their respective\nstates and vote by ballot for two _persons_,\u201d &c. \u201cThe _person_\nhaving the greatest number of votes shall be the President,\u201d &c. \u201cIf\nno _person_ have a majority,\u201d &c. \u201cIn every case, after the choice\nof the President, the _person_ having the greatest number of votes\nof the electors, shall be Vice President.\u201d (2d art., 1st section, 2d\nclause.[7]) \u201cNo _person_ except a natural born citizen,\u201d &c., \u201cshall\nbe eligible to the office of President; neither shall any _person_\nbe eligible to that office, who shall not have attained the age of\nthirty-five years,\u201d &c. \u201cNo _person_ shall be convicted of treason,\nunless on the testimony of two witnesses,\u201d &c. (3d art., 3d sect., 3d\nclause.) \u201cA _person_ charged in any state with treason,\u201d &c. (4th art.,\n2d section, 2d clause.) \u201cNo _person_ held to service or labor,\u201d &c.\n(4th art., 2d section, 3d clause.)\n\nNow, it will be seen from all this, that the word \u201c_person_\u201d is used in\nthe constitution in the most comprehensive sense. It embraces Indians,\nif taxed; it embraces natives of Africa; it embraces apprentices and\nslaves, or those held to service or labor; and it embraces every\ncitizen, from the humblest to the highest, from the most true to the\nmost treasonable. It embraces all, from the slave to the President of\nthe United States. And after having used the word to embrace all these\nclasses and descriptions of men, it proceeds to say, in an amendment,\nthat \u201c_no_ PERSON _shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property,\nwithout due process of law_.\u201d (_Amendment, Article 5._)\n\nThe law of Maryland ceded this District to Congress, \u201cin full and\nabsolute right, as well of soil as of person, residing, or to reside\ntherein.\u201d\n\nNow Congress, in attempting to legalize slavery in the District of\nColumbia, has provided in terms, by its adoption of the Maryland laws,\nthat one man may hold another man in bondage in this District, \u201cWITHOUT\nDUE PROCESS OF LAW,\u201d and indeed without any process of law; may hold\nhim in bondage from his birth; may beget him, and still hold him and\nhis posterity in bondage. \u201cProcess of law\u201d means legal proceedings and\na jury trial. It is a phrase that does not pertain to the legislature,\nbut to the courts. It means the institution of a suit in civil matters;\nthe finding of an indictment, or an information in criminal ones;\nthe issuing of subp\u0153nas for witnesses, &c., in both. (See _Art. 6 of\nAmendments to the Constitution_.)\n\nNow, a slave is a _person_ deprived of his liberty and property,\nwithout any process of law. There has been no \u201cdue\u201d process of law to\nreduce him to this miserable condition; there has been no process of\nlaw at all. A slave, therefore, in this District, is deprived of his\nliberty and property, in pursuance of the laws of Congress, without\n_any_ legal process whatever, and therefore in flagrant contradiction\nof the fifth article of the Amendments to the Constitution of the\nUnited States. Hence, the act of Congress, purporting to continue the\nMaryland laws respecting slavery in this District, was, and is, and\nforever must be, until the constitution is altered, null and void.\n\nThere is a striking historical fact in regard to the phraseology of\nthis fifth article of amendment. Its substance was proposed by several\nstates. Virginia proposed it in the following words: \u201cNo _freeman_\nought to be taken, imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold liberties,\nprivileges, or franchises, or outlawed or exiled, or in any manner\ndestroyed or deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but by the\nlaw of the land.\u201d (See _3 Elliot\u2019s Debates, 593--Proceedings of June\n27, 1788_. _Also, 4 Elliot\u2019s Debates, 216, for the same amendment, as\nproposed by the State of New York_.)\n\nThe Virginia amendment used the word \u201cfreeman.\u201d It proposed that no\n\u201cfreeman\u201d should be deprived, &c. The New York amendment used the word\n\u201c_person_.\u201d And the amendment was adopted and ratified, almost in the\nwords of the New York phraseology. The word _person_ was chosen, and\ntherefore Congress has no constitutional power to deprive of life,\nliberty, or property, _without due process of law_, any being embraced\nin the definition of that word. By its own selection of words it is\ndebarred not merely from depriving a \u201c_freeman_,\u201d but from depriving a\n\u201c_person_\u201d of this right.\n\nWhen Congress attempted to legalize and perpetuate slavery in this\nDistrict, it violated the fourth article of the Amendments, which\ndeclares \u201cthe right of the people to be _secure_ in their persons,\nhouses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and\nseizures.\u201d If Congress cannot authorize domiciliary searches and\nseizures against a single individual, can it degrade a whole race\nof men to the condition of slaves, and then say that _because they\nare slaves_, they shall not be \u201csecure;\u201d but shall be at the mercy\nof any alleged master, in regard to their persons,--to be commanded\nand restrained, to be bought and sold? If Congress cannot authorize\nsearches and seizures of houses, papers, and effects, can it get round\nthe constitution, by saying we will create a class of persons who shall\nhave no power of owning any houses, papers, or effects, to be searched\nor seized?\n\nAgain; Congress shall pass \u201cno bill of attainder.\u201d What is a bill\nof attainder? It is a bill that works corruption of blood. It\ndisfranchises its object. It takes away from him the common privileges\nof a citizen. It makes a man incapable of acquiring, inheriting, or\ntransmitting property; incapable of holding office, or acting as\nattorney for others; and it shuts the door of the courts against him.\nThese disabling consequences may descend to a man\u2019s children after him,\nthough this is not necessary. Now, to pass such a bill is a thing which\nCongress cannot do. But when Congress undertook to legalize slavery in\nthis District, it undertook to do all this, and worse than all this.\nIt attainted, not individuals merely, but a whole race. A slave is an\noutlaw; that is, he cannot make a contract; he cannot prosecute and\ndefend in court; property cannot be acquired by him, or devised to\nhim, or transmitted through him. A white man may give his testimony\nagainst him, but he cannot give his testimony against a white man. He\nis despoiled of his _liberam legem_,--his birthright. He cannot own\nthe food or clothes he has earned. What is his, is his master\u2019s. And\nthis corruption of blood, which the law of slavery works, does not stop\nwith the first, nor with the second generation,--not with the tenth\nnor the ten thousandth; but by the theory of the law, goes on forever.\nBills of attainder, during the history of the worst periods of the\nworld, have applied to individuals only, or at most to a family. But\nhere, Congress, in defiance of the constitution, has undertaken to\nestablish a degraded caste in society, and to perpetuate it through all\ngenerations. Now, can any reasonable man for a moment suppose that the\nconstitution meant to debar Congress from passing acts of attainder\nagainst individuals, but to permit it to pass wholesale, sweeping laws,\nworking disfranchisement of an entire race, and entailing degradation\nforever?\n\nLet us look at another general prohibition of the constitution: \u201cNo\ntitle of nobility shall be granted by the United States.\u201d (art. 1, \u00a7\n9, clause 8.) \u201cThe distinction of rank and honors,\u201d says Blackstone,\n\u201cis necessary in every well-governed state, in order to reward such\nas are eminent for their services to the public.\u201d But the framers of\nthe constitution did not think so; the people of the United States\ndid not think so; and therefore they incorporated a provision into\ntheir organic law that \u201cno title of nobility should be granted.\u201d But\nit matters not whether the favored individual is called \u201cMarquess\u201d\nor \u201cMaster.\u201d If he is invested by the government with a monopoly of\nrights and privileges, in virtue of his title and its legal incidents,\nwithout any corresponding civil duties, he belongs to an order of\nnobility,--he is a nobleman. Mr. McDuffie defends the institution of\nslavery, on the ground that it establishes the highest of all ranks\nand the broadest of all distinctions between men. He says no nation\nhas yet existed which has not in some form created the distinction of\nclasses,--such as patrician and plebeian, or citizen and helot, or\nlord and commoner,--and that the institution of slavery stands here\ninstead of these orders, and supersedes them all, by being equivalent\nto them all. Now, is it not inconceivable that the constitution\nshould interdict the bestowment of special favors to distinguished\nindividuals for meritorious services, and yet should authorize Congress\nto confer the highest of all earthly prerogatives,--the prerogative\nover property, liberty, and volition itself, upon one class of men over\nanother class of men? Yet if Congress can create or legalize slavery,\nit can establish the worst order of nobility that ever existed. It can\ngive to one class of men the power to own and to control, to punish and\nto despoil another class; to sell father, mother, wife, and children,\ninto bondage. To prohibit Congress from doing one of these things, and\nto permit it to do the other, is straining at a gnat and swallowing a\ncamel,--a whole caravan of camels!\n\nBut the same clause in the constitution which gives Congress the\npower of exclusive legislation over this District, also empowers it\n\u201cto exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent\nof the legislature of the state, in which the same shall be, for the\nerection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful\nbuildings.\u201d If, then, Congress has any constitutional power to legalize\nslavery in this District, it has the same power to legalize it, (that\nis, to create it,) in all places in the state of Massachusetts, or New\nYork, or any other, where it may have obtained territory from a state\nfor a fort, magazine, arsenal, dock-yard, or other needful building.\nWhere it has obtained land in the middle of a city,--Philadelphia, New\nYork, Boston, or Chicago,--for a custom-house, it may create slavery\nthere. The power to do this is conferred in precisely the same words as\nthe power by which it has been held that slavery can be established in\nthe District of Columbia.\n\nAnd now I will occupy the few minutes that are left me, in considering\nwhat seems to me the only plausible argument that can be urged in favor\nof the constitutionality of slavery in this District.\n\nIt may be said, that when a territory is obtained by one nation from\nanother, whether by conquest or by treaty, the laws which governed the\ninhabitants at the time of the conquest or cession, remain in force\nuntil they are abrogated by the laws of the conquering or purchasing\npower. For this principle, the authority of Lord Mansfield, in the case\nof _Campbell_ v. _Hall_, 1 Cowper, 208, may be cited. The decision of\nour own courts are to the same effect. (See _United States, appellant_,\nvs. _Juan Percheman_, 2 Gallison\u2019s Reports, 501; _Johnson_ vs.\n_McIntosh_, 7 Peters, 51; 8 Wheat. 543.) I do not dispute the authority\nof this case. But it does not touch the question I am arguing; or, so\nfar as it bears upon it at all, it confirms the views I would enforce.\nThe principle is, that the existing laws remain in force _until_\nthey are abrogated. I agree to this. But in the case of the District\nof Columbia, there was a special agreement between Maryland and the\nUnited States, that as soon as the United States should legislate for\nthe District, the laws of Maryland, _as such_, should cease to be\noperative here. On the 27th day of February, 1801, therefore, all the\nrights which the citizens of this District possessed, they possessed\nunder the law of Congress, and not under the law of Maryland. On the\nday preceding, a citizen could have voted for governor or other state\nofficers of Maryland; but on the day following, he could no longer\nvote for any such officer. On the day preceding, he could have voted\nfor electors of President and Vice President of the United States;\nbut on the day following, he was bereft of all such right of the\nelective franchise, and must accept such officers and legislators as\nthe rest of the country might choose to elect for him. On the day\npreceding, he might, in the character of an insolvent debtor, have\nbeen discharged under the insolvent laws of Maryland; but on the day\nfollowing, he could no longer be so discharged. On the day preceding,\nhe might have been required, though a justice of the peace of the State\nof Maryland, to perform militia duty; but on the day following, if\ncommissioned as a justice of the peace of the District of Columbia, he\ncould not be compelled to perform militia duty, because he would, in\nsuch case, be an officer of the United States. On the day preceding,\nhe might have sued in the circuit court of the United States, as being\na citizen of Maryland; but, on the day following, he could not so sue,\nbecause he had ceased to be a citizen of a state. Thus the change of\njurisdiction over him deprived him of some privileges, and relieved him\nfrom some burdens. It deprived him of these privileges, and relieved\nhim from these burdens, notwithstanding the act of Congress had said,\nin unambiguous words, \u201cthe laws of the State of Maryland, AS THEY\nNOW EXIST, _shall be and continue in force_ in that part of the said\nDistrict which was ceded by that state to the United States.\u201d But the\nmost momentous change which was wrought by the transfer of the citizen\nfrom the jurisdiction of Maryland to the jurisdiction of the United\nStates, was that which made it impossible for him any longer to hold\na slave. Under the laws of Maryland, he might have held his slave,\nfor her statutes had legalized slavery; but under the constitution of\nthe United States, he could not hold a slave; for that constitution\nhad given Congress no power to legalize slavery in this District, and\nhad gone so far as to make prohibitions against it. His right to hold\nslaves then expired, or fell, like his right to vote for United States\u2019\nofficers, or for state officers, or his right to be discharged under\nthe Maryland insolvent law, or his right to sue in certain courts, &c.,\n&c.\n\nOne point more, sir, and I have done. Why, says my opponent, did not\nthe right to hold slaves continue after the change of jurisdiction,\nas well as the right to hold horses? For the plainest of all reasons,\nI answer: for the reason that a horse is _property_ by the universal\nconsent of mankind, by the recognition of every civilized court in\nChristendom, without any positive law declaring it to be the subject of\nownership. But a _man_ is not property, without positive law; without\na law declaring him to be the subject of ownership. There was such a\npositive law in Maryland; but Congress, for want of constitutional\nauthority, could not enact, revive, or continue it. And such I verily\nbelieve would have been the decision of the Supreme Court of the\nUnited States, had the question been carried before them immediately\nsubsequent to the act of 1801. But now, as slavery has existed\npractically in this District for half a century, it is proper to pass\na law abolishing it. It is better, under the present circumstances,\nthat slavery should be abolished here by a law of Congress, than by the\ndecision of a court; because Congress can provide an indemnity for the\nowners, and let the slaves go free. But should it be abolished by a\nlegal adjudication, every slave would be hurried away to the south, and\nsold, he and his descendants, into perpetual bondage.\n\nIn justice, then, to the north, which ought not to bear the opprobrium\nof slavery in this capital of the nation; in justice to the slaves who\nare here held in bondage against legal, as well as natural right; and,\nin more than justice to the masters, whose alleged claims I am willing,\nunder all the circumstances, to satisfy, let a law be forthwith passed\nfor ascertaining and paying the market value of the slaves, and for\nrepealing all laws which uphold slavery in this District.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[5] Lecture on the North and South. Delivered in College Hall, January\n16, 1849, before the Young Men\u2019s Mercantile Library Association of\nCincinnati. By Ellwood Fisher.\n\n[6] An anecdote, which I have on the best authority, is not\ninappropriate. A few years ago, a citizen of the State of Connecticut\nabsconded, leaving a wife behind him. He went to the State of\nMississippi, where he took a colored woman as his concubine, had\nchildren by her, acquired property, and died. The wife and heirs in\nConnecticut claimed the property acquired in Mississippi. The claim was\ncontested. The honorable HENRY S. FOOTE, now a senator from that state,\nconducted the defence. He denied the title of the wife in Connecticut,\naffirmed that of the concubine and her children in Mississippi, and\ncited the case of Abraham and Sarah and Hagar, to prove the legality\nand the propriety of the concubinage, and the divine authority for it.\nAnd surely, if the Bible argument in favor of slavery is sound, Mr.\nFOOTE\u2019S argument in favor of concubinage is equally so.\n\n[7] This clause in the constitution is annulled; but for all purposes\nof determining the true interpretation of words, it is as good as ever.\n\n\n\n\n                                SPEECH\n\n DELIVERED IN THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. FEBRUARY\n 15, 1850, ON THE SUBJECT OF SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIES, AND THE\n CONSEQUENCES OF A DISSOLUTION OF THE UNION.\n\n\n  MR. CHAIRMAN;\n\nEver since the organization of this House,--before its organization,\nand even in a preliminary caucus that preceded the commencement of\nthe session, southern gentlemen have pressed the cause, not only of\nhuman slavery, but of slavery extension, upon us. From motives of\nforbearance, and not from any question as to our rights, we of the\nnorth have maintained an unbroken silence. The time has surely come\nwhen the voice of freedom should find an utterance. Would to God that\non the present occasion it might find an abler defender than myself,\nalthough if my ability to defend it were equal to the love I bear it,\nit could ask no stronger champion.\n\nI wish to premise a few words respecting the propriety and true\nsignificance of some of the epithets by which the parties to this\ndiscussion are characterized. The term \u201cFree Soiler\u201d is perpetually\nused upon this floor as a term of ignominy and reproach; yet I\nmaintain that in its original and legitimate sense, as denoting an\nadvocate of the doctrine that all our territorial possessions should\nbe consecrated to freedom, there is no language that can supply a more\nhonorable appellation. It expresses a determination on the part of its\ndisciples to keep free the territory that is now free; to stand upon\nits frontiers as the cherubim stood at the gates of Paradise, with\na flaming sword to turn every way, to keep the sin of slavery from\ncrossing its borders. If, in any instance, the original advocates of\nFree Soil have abandoned their integrity, and have courted allies who\nhad no sympathy with their principles, but were only eager to join them\nin a struggle for mere political ascendency, then, in my judgment,\nthey have lost infinitely more in moral power than they have gained\nin numbers. They have ceased to be genuine and single-hearted Free\nSoilers, whom I love, and have become partisans, whom I condemn. For\nmyself, I will engage in any honorable measure most likely to secure\nfreedom to the new territories. I will resist any and every measure\nthat proposes to abandon them to slavery. The epithet \u201cFree Soiler,\u201d\ntherefore, when rightly understood and correctly applied, implies both\npolitical and moral worth; and I covet the honor of its application\nto myself. But what does its opposite mean? What does the term \u201cSlave\nSoiler\u201d signify? It signifies one who desires and designs that all\nsoil should be made to bear slaves. Its dreadful significancy is,\nthat, after Magna Charta and the Petition of Right, in Great Britain,\nand after the Declaration of Independence, in this country, we should\ncast aside with scorn, not only the teachings of Christianity, but the\nclearest principles of natural religion and of natural law, and should\nretrograde from our boasted civilization, into the Dark Ages,--ay, into\nperiods that the dark ages might have called dark. It means that this\n_Republic_, as we call it, formed to establish freedom, should enlist\nin a crusade against freedom.\n\nAnd again; those of us at the north who resist slavery extension, who\nmean to withstand its spread beyond the limits where it now exists, are\ndenounced as Abolitionists. This epithet is applied to us as a term\nof reproach and obloquy; as a brand and stigma upon our characters\nand principles. No distinction is made between those few individuals\namong us who desire to abolish the constitution of the United States,\nand that great body of the people, who, while their allegiance to\nthis constitution is unshaken, mean also to maintain their allegiance\nto truth and to duty, in withstanding the hitherto onward march of\nslavery. Among the latter class, Mr. Collamer, the postmaster-general,\nis called an Abolitionist. Mr. John Quincy Adams was denounced as an\narch-Abolitionist. Every man who advocates the Jefferson proviso,\nagainst the spread of slavery, is so called; and if an unspeakable\nabhorrence of this institution, and the belief that it is the second\ngreatest enormity which the oppressor, in his power, ever committed\nagainst the oppressed, in his weakness,--being inferior only to that\necclesiastical domination which has trampled upon the religious freedom\nof man,--I say, if this abhorrence of slavery, and this belief in its\ncriminality, entitle a man to be denominated an Abolitionist, then I\nrejoice in my unquestionable right to the name.\n\nIn my apprehension, sir, before we can decide upon the honor or the\ninfamy of the term \u201cAbolitionist,\u201d we must know what things they\nare which he proposes to abolish. We of the north, you say, are\nAbolitionists; but abolitionists of what? Are we abolitionists of\nthe inalienable, indefeasible, indestructible rights of man? Are we\nabolitionists of knowledge, abolitionists of virtue, of education,\nand of human culture? Do we seek to abolish the glorious moral and\nintellectual attributes which God has given to his children, and thus,\nas far as it lies in our power, make the facts of slavery conform to\nthe law of slavery, by obliterating the distinction between a man and a\nbeast?\n\nDo our laws and our institutions seek to blot out and abolish the\nimage of God in the human soul? Do we abolish the marriage covenant;\nand instead of saying, with the apostle, that wives shall submit\nthemselves to their husbands, command them to submit themselves to\nany body, and to their master as husband over all? Do we ruthlessly\ntear asunder the sacred ties of affection by which God has bound\nthe parent to the child and the child to the parent? Do we seek to\nabolish all those noble instincts of the human soul, by which it\nyearns for improvement and progress; and do we quench its sublime\naspirations after knowledge and virtue? A stranger would suppose,\nfrom hearing the epithets of contumely that are heaped upon us, that\nwe were abolitionists of all truth, purity, knowledge, improvement,\ncivilization, happiness, and holiness. On this subject, perversion of\nlanguage and of idea has been reduced to a system, and the falsehoods\nof our calumniators exclude truth with the exactness of a science.\n\nBut if the word \u201cAbolitionist\u201d is to be used in a reproachful and\ncontumelious sense, does it not more properly belong to those who would\nextend a system which in its very nature abolishes freedom, justice,\nequity, and a sense of human brotherhood? Does it not belong to those\nwho would abolish not only all social and political, but all natural\nrights; who would abolish \u201cliberty and the pursuit of happiness;\u201d\nwho would close up all the avenues to knowledge; who would render\nfreedom of thought and liberty of conscience impossible, by crushing\nout the faculties by which alone we can think and decide; who would\nrob a fellow-man of his parental rights, and innocent children of\nthe tenderness and joys of a filial love; who would introduce a foul\nconcubinage in place of the institution of marriage, and who would\nremorselessly trample upon all the tenderest and holiest affections\nwhich the human soul is capable of feeling? After Mr. Jefferson, in the\nDeclaration of Independence, had enumerated a few oppressive deeds of\nthe British king towards his American colonists, he denominated him\n\u201ca prince whose character was marked by every act that could define a\ntyrant.\u201d There are now as many slaves in this country as there were\ncolonists in 1776. Compare the condition of these three million slaves\nwith the condition of the three million colonists. The conduct of\nthat sovereign who was denounced before earth and heaven as having\ncommitted all the atrocities that could \u201cdefine a tyrant,\u201d was mercy\nand loving-kindness compared with the wrongs and privations of three\nmillions of our fellow-beings, now existing among us. If the word\n\u201cAbolitionist,\u201d then, is to be used in a reproachful sense, let it be\napplied to those who, in the middle of the nineteenth century, and in\ndefiance of all the lights of the age, would extend the horrors of an\ninstitution which, by one all-comprehending crime towards a helpless\nrace, makes it impossible to commit any new crime against them,--unless\nit be to enlarge the area of their bondage, and to multiply the number\nof their victims.\n\nIf we are abolitionists, then, we are abolitionists of human bondage;\nwhile those who oppose us are abolitionists of human liberty. We\nwould prevent the extension of one of the greatest wrongs that man\never suffered upon earth; they would carry bodily chains and mental\nchains,--chains in a literal and chains in a figurative sense,--into\nrealms where even the half-civilized descendants of the Spaniard and\nthe Indian have silenced their clanking. We would avert the impending\nnight of ignorance and superstition; they would abolish the glorious\nliberty wherewith God maketh his children free. In using this word,\ntherefore, to calumniate us, they put darkness for light, and light for\ndarkness; good for evil, and evil for good.\n\nThe constitutional right of Congress to legislate for the territories\nis still debated. Having presented my views on this subject before,\nI shall now treat it with brevity. In a speech, by General Cass,\nwhich has lately been published, that distinguished senator, in order\nto prove that Congress has no power to legislate on the subject of\nslavery in the territories, has attempted to prove that it has no\nright to legislate for the territories at all. I refer to the senator\nfrom Michigan, because he now stands before the country in the twofold\ncharacter of being the head of the Democratic party, which goes for\nthe \u201c_largest liberty_,\u201d and also of the extreme pro-slavery party,\nwhich goes for the _largest bondage_. He would sever all diplomatic\nrelations between this country and Austria, because she has robbed the\nHungarians of _a part_ of their liberties, while he is drawing closer\nthe political ties which bind him to the south, which has despoiled\nthree millions of the African race of _all_ their liberties, and is now\nintent on propagating other millions for new despoliations. He claims,\nas the great bequest of the barons of Runnymede, that the inhabitants\nof the territories, under all circumstances of infancy, or poverty,\nor weakness, shall have the sole and exclusive right of governing\nthemselves, when the practical result of this doctrine, so nicely\ntimed, would be, that one part of those inhabitants would be crowned\nwith power like so many King Johns, to lord it over their vassals.\nUnder the name of liberty, he enters a path that terminates in bondage.\nSouthern gentlemen had all admitted the power of Congress to legislate\nfor the territories, though they denied the special inference,\ndeducible from the general power, that they could legislate to prohibit\nslavery in them. But, seeing that the right to legislate on the subject\nof slavery flows irresistibly from the right to legislate on all other\nsubjects, because no rule of interpretation, which concedes the power\nto make laws respecting political franchises, courts, crimes, officers,\nand the militia, can stop short at the subject of slavery;--seeing all\nthis, General Cass denies both inference and premises, _and places\nthe general government in the relation of a foreign power to the\nterritories which it owns_, and of which it possesses the acknowledged\nsovereignty. He reminds one of the man who denied the existence of\nfuture punishment, and, when pressed with arguments drawn from the\ndeserts of men, and from the justice of God, he suddenly arrested his\nantagonist by denying the existence of a God!\n\nWhen some immensely long speech made in the British House of Commons,\nwas spoken of before Sheridan as being _luminous_, he expressed both a\nnegative and an affirmative opinion respecting it, in a single word,\nby replying that it was _vo_-luminous. General Cass, in a speech\nthat fills more than nineteen columns in the Washington _Union_, has\nreviewed the decisions of all the judges of the Supreme Court who have\never expressed any opinion on the subject of congressional power over\nterritorial legislation; he has commented upon the views of all the\njurists who have written upon it, and of most of the speakers in both\nHouses of Congress who have discussed it; he has surveyed the course of\nadministration of all the Presidents we have ever had; and has come to\nthe clear conclusion that all of them,--judges, jurists, legislators,\nand presidents,--have systematically violated the constitution of\nthe United States, or commended its violation, on every practicable\noccasion for the last sixty years.\n\nOmitting the hundred ways in which the absurdity of this conclusion\ncan be exposed, let me subject it to one practical test. We have\nacquired territory from Mexico. General Cass voted to ratify the treaty\nof cession. Measures have been instituted for the formation of three\nseparate governments in this Territory,--those of California, Deseret,\n[Utah,] and New Mexico. The boundaries marked out by California and\nDeseret overlay each other to the amount of thousands of square miles.\nIf they have the exclusive right of self-government, as General Cass\ndeclares, and Congress none, then they must settle this question of\nboundary themselves. They may declare war against each other, make\nalliances with foreign powers, equip armies, build fleets; while\nCongress can do nothing within their limits but--sell land.\n\nBut what renders the argument of General Cass still more extraordinary\nis the fact, that, according to his own doctrine, he has spent the\ngreater part of his political life in violating the constitution, while\nconstantly repeating his oath to support it. As marshal of Ohio, as\ngovernor of Michigan, as Indian agent, he has appointed officers and\nmagistrates, and executed laws, when, according to his own showing, he\nwas a mere interloper and usurper; he has met territorial legislatures,\nwhich had no more right to assemble than a mob; he has doubtless\nimprisoned, if not executed many alleged offenders, who had as good\na legal right to execute or to imprison him; and he has received\nsalaries for more than twenty years, to which the khan of Tartary was\nas much entitled as he. Now, if he will refund the salaries he has\nunconstitutionally received; make reparation for the penalties or\nforfeitures he has wrongfully extorted; show some signs of contrition\nfor the men whom he has unlawfully imprisoned or hung, it will remove\nthe suspicions of many minds, in regard to the sincerity, if not the\nsoundness, of his argument.\n\nI mention these facts from no personal feelings in regard to the\nsenator from Michigan; but only to show to what desperate extremities\nmen are driven in order to defend the right of spreading slavery from\nthe Atlantic to the Pacific ocean; and because this is the last reading\nof the constitution which has been invented for the purpose.\n\nSince the last session of Congress, the condition of a part of this\nterritory has greatly changed. The unexampled velocity with which a\nliving stream of men has poured into it within the last twelve months,\nhas reversed its condition and decided its destiny. In other countries,\n_individuals_ seek their fortunes by changing their residence. Under\nthe vehement action of our enterprise, _cities_ migrate. The new\nresidents of California have framed a constitution, have applied\nfor admission into this Union, and their application is now pending\nbefore us. Of their own accord, they have excluded slavery from their\nborders by their fundamental law. Until the discovery of gold in that\ncountry, and until all incredulity in regard to that remarkable fact\nhad been overcome, it was confidently anticipated at the south, and\nintensely feared at the north, that the whole region would be overrun\nwith slaveholders and with slaves. As far back as 1842, Mr. Wise, of\nVirginia, the administration leader in the House of Representatives,\nboldly declared that \u201c_slavery should pour itself abroad without\nrestraint, and find no limit but the Southern Ocean_.\u201d The war with\nMexico was waged for the twofold purpose of robbing that republic\nof its territory, and then robbing that territory of its freedom.\nCongressional orators and the southern press avowed that the object of\nacquiring territory was to extend the \u201cdivine institution.\u201d I could\nquote pages in proof of this assertion. The north had no hope, the\nsouth had no fear, if the territories were left without control, but\nthat they would first be filled with slaveholders, and would then\nincorporate slavery into their organic law. While these prospects\ncontinued, the south insisted that the territories should be left\nuntrammelled. Distinguished men in this House, Mr. Calhoun and other\nsenators, the government organ, which was supposed to express the views\nof President Polk and his cabinet, all proclaimed that the territories\nshould be left free to institute such government as they might\nchoose.[8] But since California has formed a _free_ constitution, what\na sudden change has taken place in the convictions of men! Within the\npresent week we have had three most elaborate speeches in this House,\nin which the admission of California, with her free constitution, is\nvehemently opposed on constitutional grounds. Yes, sir, did you know\nit? _the constitution of the United States has just been altered;_ or,\nwhat is intended to produce the same effect, without the trouble of\nan alteration in the manner prescribed by itself, its interpretation\nhas been altered. While California promised to be a slave state, all\ninterference was unconstitutional. Now, as she desires to be a free\nstate, it has become constitutional to interfere and repel her. Not\nonly so, but, according to the gentleman from Alabama, (Mr. INGE,)\nin swearing to support the constitution we have sworn to perpetuate,\nand not only to perpetuate, but to _extend_ slavery. \u201cTo those,\u201d he\nsays, \u201cwho are disposed to resist my views, I commend a more attentive\nreading of that instrument. They will find that it not only guarantees\nslavery, but provides for its extension.\u201d Or, as he says in another\nplace, it makes provision \u201cto extend the institution indefinitely.\u201d\nAnd, therefore, when a territory asks to be admitted as a free state,\nit is to be repulsed, and virtually told, \u201cIf you will incorporate\nslavery into your constitution, you shall be admitted; if not, not.\u201d\nHad the man who first uttered the adage that \u201ccircumstances alter\ncases,\u201d foreseen our times, he would have said, \u201ccircumstances alter\n_principles_.\u201d\n\nThe same gentleman defends slavery by an appeal to the Bible. But if\nthe Bible be authority for the principal, is it not authority for the\nincidents also? If an authority for the cruelties of bondage, is it\nnot an equal authority for its mitigations? Is not the command to\n\u201challow the fiftieth year,\u201d as a year of jubilee, and to \u201cproclaim\nliberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof,\u201d\ncontained in the same code, and in the same chapter of the same code,\nwith that oft-cited authority to buy bondmen and bondmaids of the\nheathen? If the Bible is your commission, why do you not follow the\nterms of the commission, observing its limitations as well as its\npowers? This is the fiftieth year of the century,--the very year of\njubilee itself; and yet, instead of \u201creturning every man unto his\npossession, and every man unto his family,\u201d this is the chosen year for\nsubjugating new realms to bondage. It is not to be \u201challowed,\u201d as a\nyear of jubilee, but to be profaned as a year of captivity and mourning.\n\nSir, I must express the most energetic dissent from those who would\njustify modern slavery from the Levitical law. My reason and conscience\nrevolt from those interpretations which\n\n      \u201cTorture the hallowed pages of the Bible,\n      To sanction crime, and robbery, and blood,\n    And, in oppression\u2019s hateful service, libel\n              Both man and God.\u201d\n\nPriests appealed to the Bible in Galileo\u2019s time, to refute the truths\nof astronomy. For more than two hundred years, the same class of men\nappealed to the same authority to disprove the science of geology. And\nnow, this authority is cited, not to disprove a law of physical nature\nmerely, but to deny a great law of the human soul,--a law of human\nconsciousness,--a law of God, written upon the tablet of every man\u2019s\nheart, authenticating and attesting his title to freedom. Sir, let\nthose who reverence the Bible beware how they suborn it to commit this\ntreason and perjury against the sacred rights of man and the holy law\nof God. Whatever they gain for the support of their doctrine, will be\nso much subtracted from the authority of the Scriptures. If the Bible\nhas crossed the Atlantic to spread slavery over a continent where it\nwas unknown before, then the Bible is a book of death, and not a book\nof life.\n\nIt is further objected to the admission of California, that its\ndimensions are too large for a single state. The force of this\nobjection is somewhat abated when we reflect that it comes from men\nwho were most strenuous for the admission of Texas. However, I shall\nnot object very earnestly to the reduction of its limits. I will say,\nin frankness, that the southern portion of California is understood to\nbe even more attached to freedom than the northern. The result may,\ntherefore, be, if this objection is persisted in and a division made,\nthat we shall soon have two free states instead of one. It was said by\nthe last administration, that Mexico was to be dismembered, in order\n\u201cto extend the area of freedom.\u201d The most just retribution for that\ndiabolical irony is, to carry out the declaration literally.\n\nBut I now come to a more substantial part of this great question. The\nsouth rests its claims to the new territory upon the great doctrine of\nequality. There are fifteen slave states; there are only fifteen free\nstates. The south contributed men and money for the conquest, not less\nthan the north; hence, equal ownership and equal rights of enjoyment.\nThis is the argument. In a long and most elaborate speech, delivered in\nthe Senate this week by one of the most eminent jurists in the Southern\nStates, (Judge BERRIEN,) he founds the whole claim of the south on this\ndoctrine of equality.\n\nNow, I admit this principle in its fullest extent, and without\nhesitation. That country is equally free to all the people of the\nUnited States. The government can sell the lands not already covered\nby valid titles; and any citizen who will comply with its terms can\nbuy them. The people of each of the United States can go there and\nestablish their domicile. The laws of Congress make no discrimination\nbetween them. The constitution makes no such discrimination. The law\nof nature and of nations makes none. The north has no privilege over\nthe south, and the south has none over the north. If the north has\nany greater right there than the south, the equality is destroyed. If\nthe south has any greater right there than the north, the equality is\nequally destroyed.\n\nAnd now, practically, what right has the north, or what right is\nclaimed by the north, which the south has not to an equal extent? What\narticle of property can a citizen of Massachusetts carry there which a\ncitizen of Georgia can _not_ carry there? Can we carry any of our local\nlaws there; even though all the inhabitants of the state should remove\nthither in a body? Certainly not. When we leave our state, we leave\nour local laws behind us. A citizen of Boston has a right to educate\nhis children at school, at the public expense. In the Boston public\nschools, he can prepare his son to enter any college in this country,\neven though he is too poor to pay a cent for taxes, and never has paid\na cent for taxes. Has he any such right on arriving at San Francisco?\nIf the city of Boston debars him of this right of educating his son\nat the public charge, he can institute a suit against it and recover\nfull damages. Can he do the same thing at San Francisco or San Jose?\nCertainly not. He has left the laws and institutions of Massachusetts\nbehind him. But, it is said, we can carry our _property_ there, and\nyou cannot carry your _property_ there. I think those who use this\nargument, like the old Roman augurs, must smile at each other askance,\nfor the credulity or simplicity of those they beguile by it. Will not\nevery man, even of the feeblest discernment, see the fallacy which is\nhere covered up under the word \u201c_property_?\u201d What is meant by this\ndeceptive term \u201c_property_?\u201d If you mean silver, or gold, or seeds, or\ngrains, or sheep, or horses, cannot you carry these there as freely\nas we can? But you have special laws; local and peculiar laws,--laws\ncontrary to the great principles of the common law, by which you call\n_men and women_ property. And then, forsooth, because we can carry\n_property_ there, when _property_ means grain and cattle, you can\ncarry property there when it means human beings,--perhaps your own\nbrothers, or sisters, or children. Because we can carry our property\nthere, when property means inanimate substances, you have only to call\na human being _property_;--you have only to call a creature, formed in\nthe image of God, _property_, and then he can be smuggled in under the\nnew name. Why, sir, there is not a respectable village in the country,\nwhere, if a juggler or mountebank were to attempt to palm off upon his\naudience so flimsy a trick as this, he would not be hissed from the\nstage. There are certain kinds of property and rights which we can\ncarry with us to the territories, and other kinds which we cannot. We\ncan carry movable property, but not immovable,--a diamond or a library,\nbut not a cotton factory nor a cotton field.\n\nBy the papers of this city, as I open them every morning, I see that\nlotteries are authorized by more or less of the Southern States. Their\n\u201cschemes\u201d are regularly advertised. I remember, when stopping for a\nday in one of the southern cities, that some half-official looking\npersonages came into the hotel, cleared a large space in the public\nhall, set down a rotary machine, and proceeded to draw a lottery.\nNow, in Massachusetts, and in many of the Northern States, lotteries\nare prohibited, under severe penalties. With us, it is highly penal\nto advertise a lottery in any form, to placard one at the corners\nof the streets, or to exhibit any plan or emblem of one at a shop\nwindow. We act upon the well-known truth, that there is a much less\nnumber of persons who draw any considerable prize in a lottery, than\nthere are who are killed by lightning; and therefore, whatever chance\na ticket-holder has of drawing any considerable prize, we know that\nhe has a much greater chance of being killed by lightning. Now, when\na citizen of Virginia and a citizen of Massachusetts go to the new\nterritories, does the former carry his right to establish and draw a\nlottery, or the latter carry his right to prosecute the other for doing\nso? Neither; certainly neither. Both have left the local law behind\nthem. If any state in this Union had adopted polygamy as its peculiar\ninstitution, could an inhabitant of that state take a dozen wives with\nhim into the new territories, and defend his claim to live with them\nthere, because he could do so at home? Or, suppose, in pursuance of\nthe \u201cmanifest destiny\u201d principle, we should _re_-annex a part of China\nto this Union, could the Chinese, on removing to California, carry\nthe practice of infanticide with them? Just as well, I answer, and on\nprecisely the same legal ground that the south can carry slavery into\nNew Mexico. The reason is that the law of slavery is a _local_ law.\nLike lotteries, or polygamy, or infanticide, it can legally exist in\nno land where the principles of the common law prevail, until it is\nlegalized and sanctioned by a special law. Then it is permitted on\nthe simple ground that so much of the common law as secures liberty\nand property, the right of _habeas corpus_ and freedom of speech to\neach individual, has been cut out and cast away. The constitution\nproceeds upon this doctrine when it provides for the recapture of\nfugitive slaves. Why did it not provide for the capture of a fugitive\nhorse or ox? Why did it not provide that, if a horse or an ox should\nescape from a slave state into a free state, it should be delivered\nup, or be recoverable by legal process? Because horses and oxen are\n_property_, by the common consent of mankind. It needed no law to\nmake them property. They are property by the law of nations, by the\nEnglish common law, by the law of every state in this Union,--_while\nmen and women are not_. An escaped slave could not be recovered before\nthe adoption of the constitution. The power to seize upon escaping\nslaves was one of the motives for adopting it. These considerations\ndemonstrate that slaves are not _property_, within the meaning of this\nword, when it is affirmed that if the north can carry _its_ property\ninto the territories, so can the south. As the constitution, in terms,\nadopts the common law, it leaves slavery nothing to stand upon but the\nlocal laws of the states where it is established. Freedom is the rule,\nslavery is the exception. Judge Berrien\u2019s favorite doctrine of equality\nwould, therefore, be destroyed, if the exception should prevail over\nthe rule. For, if slavery can be carried into any of our territories by\nforce of the constitution, it can into all of them; and if carried into\nall of them, the exception becomes the rule, and the rule perishes. Ay,\nthe rule ceases to be even so much as an exception to that which was\n_its_ own exception. It is wholly swallowed up and lost.\n\nI know it is said that the _fact_ of slavery always precedes the _law_\nof slavery; that _law_ does not go before the institution and create\nit, but comes afterwards to sanction and regulate it. But this is no\nmore true of slavery than of every other institution or practice among\nmankind, whether right or wrong. Homicide existed before law; the\nlaw came in subsequently, and declared that he who took an innocent\nman\u2019s life without law, should lose his own by law. The law came in to\nregulate homicide; to authorize the taking of human life for crime,\njust as we authorize involuntary servitude for crime; and it may just\nas well be argued that murder is a natural right because it existed\nbefore law, as that slavery is a natural right because it existed\nbefore law. _This argument appeals to the crime which the law was\nenacted to prevent, in order to establish the supremacy of the crime\nover the law that forbids it._\n\nThere is another fallacy in the arguments which southern gentlemen use\non this subject, which, though not as transparent as the preceding,\nis quite as unsound. They speak of the _rights_ of the slaveholder in\nthe new territories. They speak as though the collective ownership of\nthe territories by the government, were the ownership of the people in\nseveralty; as though each citizen could go there and draw a line round\na \u201cplacer,\u201d and say _this is mine_; and then, _because it is his_,\nintroduce his slaves upon it. But nothing is more clear than that there\nis no such _individual_ right. The right of the government is, _first_,\na right of sovereignty and jurisdiction; and _second_, the right of\nownership of all lands, navigable waters, &c., which have not been\nconveyed away by the pre\u00ebxisting government. Individuals retain their\ncitizenship on going there, as they do on going to Great Britain, or\nFrance; but a slave has just as much right to a portion of the public\nlands in California, when he gets there, as his master.\n\nAgain; if the master carries into California the legal right to hold\nslaves, which he possessed at home, does not the slave also retain\nhis legal rights when he is transferred there? The laws which govern\nslaves are as various as the states where they exist. In some states\nmanumission is comparatively unobstructed. In Delaware, it is a penal\noffence even to sell a slave to a notorious slavedealer. In Georgia,\nthe law forbids, or lately forbade, the importation of slaves for sale.\nNow, how can a Georgian import slaves into California from Georgia,\nwhen the very laws of his own state, under which he claims to hold\nslaves, and under which laws he claims to carry slaves with him, forbid\ntheir importation?\n\nAnd further, political franchises or privileges are just as much a\npart of a man\u2019s rights as any tangible commodity. In South Carolina,\nthe ownership of ten slaves constitutes a property qualification\nfor being a member of the legislature. On removing to California,\nwill the citizen of South Carolina, who owns ten slaves, carry an\neligibility to the legislature of California with him? Nay, this\npolitical privilege in South Carolina goes further. It is a right in\nevery owner of ten slaves, that no man who does not own ten slaves,\n(or some legal equivalent,) shall be a member of the legislature.\nThe aspirant for office has a legal right in the limitation of the\nnumber of his competitors, as much as in any thing else. Can he carry\n_this_ to California with him? The inference is inevitable, that if\nthe inhabitants of the fifteen slave states can carry slaves into\nCalifornia by virtue of the laws of their respective states, then they\nmust also carry all the incidents of slavery known to their respective\ncodes. For, how can the incident be separated from the principal? You\nmight, therefore, have, in a neighborhood of fifteen families, fifteen\nslave codes in operation at the same time,--a manifest absurdity.\n\nThe conclusion, then, is irresistible, that when you come to the\nboundary line between a slave state and a free state, you come to\nthe boundary line of slavery itself. On one side of the line, down\nto the nadir and up to the zenith, the blackness of the slave code\npervades all things; but, on the other side, as high above and as deep\nbelow, is the purity of freedom. Virginia cannot extend her laws one\nhair\u2019s breadth over the line into Pennsylvania or into Ohio, because\ntheir soil is beyond her jurisdiction. So neither Virginia, nor all\nthe fifteen slave states combined, can extend their slave laws one\nhair\u2019s breadth into the new territories; and for the same reason,--the\nterritories are beyond their jurisdiction.\n\nAs to the argument that the constitution of the United States\nrecognizes slavery, and that, upon the cession of new territories, the\nconstitution, by some magical and incomprehensible elasticity, extends\nitself over them, and carries slavery into them, I think I speak with\nall due respect when I say it does not come up to the dignity of a\nsophism. Where do strict constructionists, or even latitudinarian\nconstructionists, find any clause, or phrase, or word, which shows that\nthe constitution is any thing but a compact between _states_? Where do\nthey find any thing that shows it to be a compact between territories,\nor between territories _and_ states conjoined? On its very face,\nthe constitution meets this pretension with a denial. The preamble\ndeclares, \u201cWe the people of the United States,\u201d--not the people of\nthe territories, nor the people of the states _and_ territories,--\u201cin\norder to form a more perfect Union,\u201d--\u201cdo ordain and establish this\nconstitution for _the United States_ of America.\u201d If the constitution\nis a compact between the United States _and_ the territories, then\nthe people of the territories have all the rights under it which the\npeople of the states have,--the right to choose electors for President\nand Vice-President, &c., and to be represented in Congress by a member\nwho can vote as well as speak. The only way in which the constitution\never was extended, or ever can be extended over any part of the earth\u2019s\nsurface outside of the \u201coriginal thirteen,\u201d is this: The constitution\nin express terms authorizes the admission of new states, and therefore,\nwhen a new state is admitted, it becomes one of these \u201cUnited States of\nAmerica.\u201d The constitution does not extend over the territories, but\nCongress, being the creature of the constitution, is, when legislating\nfor the territories, not only invested with constitutional powers, but\nis limited by constitutional restrictions.\n\nIt would have been a much more plausible pretension, when the purchase\nof Louisiana and Florida was made, that the constitution carried\nfreedom into those territories; because the constitution was built upon\nthe basis of the common law, and, in terms, adopts the common law for\nits legal processes and its rules of judicial interpretation; and every\nbody knows that there is no principle more dear to the common law than\nthat all treaties, statutes, and customs shall be construed in favor of\nlife and in favor of liberty.\n\nHaving, as I trust, refuted the argument of the slaveholder, that the\nprohibition of slavery in the territories is an act of injustice to\nhis rights, I will consider his next assertion, that it is an insult\nto his feelings. We are told that the exclusion of slavery from the\nterritories is an affront to the honorable sensibilities of the south;\nand that acquiescence in this exclusion would involve their dishonor\nand degradation.\n\nThere are two answers to this complaint. The first is, that among\ngentlemen, no insult is ever offered where none is intended. There may\nbe heedlessness of conduct, there may be an unintentional wounding of\nsensibilities; but there can be no affront where the design to affront\nis wanting. He is not a gentleman, but a poltroon and a braggart, who\npretends he is insulted and proceeds to retaliate for the affront,\nwhen all insult and all affront are sincerely disclaimed. Now, it is\ninfinitely far from the purpose of the north to offer any indignity to\nthe south by excluding slavery from the territories. Their hostility to\nslavery grows out of an honest allegiance to what they believe to be\nthe highest moral and religious duty; it is fortified by the opinions\nof mankind; and is perfectly compatible with the most fraternal\nfeelings towards the south. They wish to expostulate, in regard to the\nwrong, in such a way as to arrest the wrong, and not, by inflaming\nthe wrongdoer, to increase the evil. However erroneous, then, their\nlanguage or their sentiments may be, they are not affrontive nor\ncontumelious; and, when all such purpose is disavowed, those who aspire\nto stand on the footing of gentlemen cannot reiterate the charge.\n\nBut there is another consideration,--one which appertains to the party\nsupposed to be insulted, rather than the party charged with the insult.\nIn his \u201cTheory of Moral Sentiments,\u201d Adam Smith maintains that it is\nthe judgment of men,--the opinion of the bystanders,--that gives us\nthe pleasure of being approved, or the pain of being disapproved, on\naccount of our conduct. Now, in this contest between the north and the\nsouth, on the subject of extending slavery, who are the bystanders?\nThey are the civilized nations of the earth. We, the north and the\nsouth, are contending in the arena. All civilized men stand around\nus. They are a ring of lookers-on. It is an august spectacle. It is\na larger assemblage than ever witnessed any other struggle in the\nhistory of mankind; and their shouts of approbation or hisses of\nscorn are worthy of our heed. And what do these spectators say, in\nthe alternations of the combat? Do they urge on the south to mightier\nefforts, to the wider spread of slavery, and the multiplication of its\nvictims? Do they shout when she triumphs? When new chains are forged\nand riveted, when new realms are subdued by haughty taskmasters, and\noverrun by imbruted slaves, do their plaudits greet your ears and rouse\nyou to more vehement efforts? All the reverse; totally the reverse.\nThey are now looking on with disgust and abhorrence. They groan, they\nmock, they hiss. The brightest pages of their literature portray\nyou, as covered with badges of dishonor; their orators hold up your\npurposes as objects for the execration of mankind; their wits hurl the\nlightnings of satire at your leaders; their statute books abound in\nlaws in which institutions like yours are branded as crimes; their\nmoralists, from their high and serene seats of justice, arraign and\ncondemn you; their theologians find your doom of retribution in the\noracles of God. England has abolished slavery. France, in one fervid\nmoment of liberty, struck the chains from off all her slaves, as\nthe bonds of Paul and Silas were loosed in the inner prison by the\nmighty power of God. Sweden has abolished it. More than twenty years\nago, impotent, half-civilized Mexico did the same. Tunis, a Barbary\nstate, and, I might add, a barbarous state, has abolished slavery.\nMahometanism precedes Christianity, and sets it an example of virtue.\nLiberia, a republic of emancipated slaves, the very brothers and\nsisters of those whom you now hold in bondage, has been acknowledged as\nan independent sovereignty, and welcomed into the family of nations, by\ntwo of the most powerful governments on the globe. By this act, freedom\nsecures a new domain on the eastern continent, while you are striving\nto give a new domain to bondage on the western. A monarchy hails the\nadvent of a free nation in Africa, where slavery existed before; a\nrepublic is seeking to create ten thousand absolute despotisms in\nAmerica, where freedom existed before.\n\nNow, these are the bystanders and lookers-on in this grand and awful\ncontestation. They are all agreed, as one man, in their opinions\nabout it. They are unitedly visiting your course with execration and\nanathema. There is not a nation on the globe, that has a printing press\nand a people that can read, from which you can extort one token of\napproval. I would agree to submit the question now at issue between the\nnorth and the south to the arbitrament of any people on the face of the\nearth, not absolutely savage, and to abide its decision. Nay, the wild\ntribes of the Caucasus and of Upper India, who have defended themselves\nso nobly against aggression, would spurn your claim and deride its\npretexts. And yet you say you are insulted, dishonored, disgraced in\nthe eyes of mankind, if you are not permitted to bring down upon our\nheads, also, the curses they are pouring upon yours. So far is this\nfrom truth, that if you would promptly and cheerfully consecrate the\nnew territories to freedom, every nation in the world would send their\nplaudits of your conduct to the skies.\n\nBut gentlemen of the south not only argue the question of right and of\nhonor; they go further, and they tell us what they will proceed to do\nif we do not yield to their demands. A large majority of the southern\nlegislatures have solemnly \u201cresolved\u201d that if Congress prohibits\nslavery in the new territories, they will resist the law \u201cat any and at\nevery hazard.\u201d And yet they say they do not mean to threaten us. They\ndesire to abstain from all language of menace, for threats and menaces\nare beneath the character of gentlemen. Sir, what is the meaning of\nthe terms \u201cthreats\u201d and \u201cmenaces?\u201d Mr. Troup, formerly governor of\nGeorgia, speaking of us who are upon this floor, and of others who\nresist the extension of slavery, calls each of us a \u201cfanatic.\u201d He says\nthat it is only the dread of death that will stay our hands or stop\nour machinations; and then adds, \u201cTHAT DREAD YOU MUST PRESENT TO HIM\nIN A VISIBLE, PALPABLE FORM.\u201d \u201cIf,\u201d he says in another place, \u201cthe\nabolitionists resolve to force emancipation, or _to force dishonor upon\nthe southern states by any act of Congress_, then it is my decided\nopinion that, with the military preparation here indicated, conjoined\nto a good volunteer instead of a militia system, THE STATE SHOULD MARCH\nUPON WASHINGTON AND DISSOLVE THE GOVERNMENT.\u201d The gentleman from North\nCarolina, [Mr. CLINGMAN,] forewarns us that if certain measures,--and\nthey are legal and constitutional measures which he indicates,--are\ntaken in order to carry on the business of legislation in this House,\nthe House itself shall be the \u201cLexington\u201d of a new revolution, and\nthat \u201csuch a struggle would not leave a quorum to do business.\u201d I\ncould occupy my hour in citing passages of a similar character from\nthe southern press and from southern men. Now, if these are not\nthreats,--threats most gross, flagrant, and offensive,--I know not the\nmeaning of the word. Perhaps those who utter such sentiments are only\npractising an inversion of language equal to their inversion of ideas\non this subject, and would call them \u201centicements;\u201d like the sailor,\nwho said he was enticed to join a mutiny, and being asked what arts had\nbeen used to entice him, said that the ringleader sprang at him with\na handspike, and swore if he did not join it he would knock out his\nbrains.\n\nAnd do those gentlemen who make these threats soberly consider how\ndeeply they are pledging themselves and their constituents by them?\nThreats of dissolution, if executed, become rebellion and treason.\nThe machinery of this government is now moving onward in its majestic\ncourse. Custom-houses, post-offices, land-offices, army, navy, are\nfulfilling their prescribed circle of duties. They will continue to\nfulfil them until arrested by violence. Should the hand of violence be\nlaid upon them, then will come that exigency expressly provided for in\nthe constitution and in the President\u2019s inaugural oath, \u201cTO TAKE CARE\nTHAT THE LAWS BE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED.\u201d Mr. Chairman, such collision\nwould be _war_. Such forcible opposition to the government would be\n_treason_. Its agents and abettors would be _traitors_. Wherever this\nrebellion rears its crest, martial law will be proclaimed; and those\nfound with hostile arms in their hands must prepare for the felon\u2019s\ndoom.\n\nSir, I cannot contemplate this spectacle without a thrill of horror.\nIf the two sections of this country ever marshal themselves against\neach other, and their squadrons rush to the conflict, it will be a war\ncarried on by such powers of intellect, animated by such vehemence of\npassion, and sustained by such an abundance of resources, as the world\nhas never before witnessed. \u201cTen foreign wars,\u201d it has been well said,\n\u201care a luxury compared with one civil war.\u201d But I turn from this scene\nwith a shudder. If, in the retributive providence of God, the volcano\nof civil war should ever burst upon us, it will be amid thunderings\nabove, and earthquakes below, and darkness around; and when that\ndarkness is lifted up, we shall see this once glorious union,--this\noneness of government, under which we have been prospered and blessed\nas Heaven never prospered and blessed any other people,--rifted in\ntwain from east to west, with a gulf between us wide and profound, save\nthat this gulf will be filled and heaped high with the slaughtered\nbodies of our countrymen; and when we re\u00e4waken to consciousness, we\nshall behold the garments and the hands of the survivors red with\nfratricidal blood.\n\nAnd what is the object for which we are willing to make this awful\nsacrifice? Is it to redeem a realm to freedom? No! But to subjugate a\nrealm to slavery. Is it to defend the rights of man? No! But to abolish\nthe rights of man!\n\nMr. BOWDON. Does not the gentleman think that such a picture as he has\ndrawn would induce the north to yield a portion of the new territories\nto the institution of slavery?\n\nMr. MANN. I trust that no pictures _and no realities_ will ever induce\nus to extend slavery beyond its present limits. Beyond those limits,\n\u201cNo more slave territories, no more slave states,\u201d is the doctrine by\nwhich I, for one, shall live and die.\n\nNow, sir, as this event of a dissolution of the Union is so frequently\nforced upon our contemplation, I propose to occupy the residue of my\nhour in considering some of its more obvious consequences. Southern\npapers and southern resolution writers have a favorite phrase, that if\nCongress shall pass any law against the extension of slavery, they will\nresist it \u201cat any and every hazard.\u201d Let us inquire, soberly, what a\nfew of these hazards are:--\n\nFirst, as to the recovery, or non-recovery, of fugitive slaves, which\nis one of the alleged provocatives of dissolution. Take a map of the\nSouthern States and spread it out before you. Although they cover an\narea of about nine hundred thousand square miles, yet it is a very\nremarkable fact, that only an insignificantly small portion of this\nvast extent lies more than two hundred and fifty miles from a free\nfrontier; and those parts which do lie beyond this distance hold but\nfew slaves. Those portions of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia,\nAlabama, and Tennessee, where their upper boundaries converge among\nthe mountains, are a little more than this distance from a free\nborder; but this territory is relatively insignificant in size, and\nsparsely populated with slaves. An outside belt or border region of\nthe slave states, no part of which shall be more than one hundred\nmiles from a free frontier, would embrace nearly one half of their\nwhole area; and, as I suppose, much more than one half of their whole\nslave population. What is to prevent the easy escape of slaves living\nwithin these limits? While God sends nights upon the earth, nothing\ncan prevent it. I venture to predict, that in such a state of things,\nslaves will become cheap, and horses will become dear. I am aware of\nyour laws which forbid slaves to cross bridges or ferries, without a\npass; but you can have no law against seasons of low water. The old\nadage says, \u201criches have wings.\u201d You will find that these riches have\nlegs. The Mississippi and Ohio Rivers, where they border upon free\nstates, will be alive as with shoals of porpoises. Remember there is\nno constitution of the United States now. That you have broken. The\nfree states are therefore absolved from all obligation to surrender\nfugitives. The law of 1793 is at an end. No action can be maintained\nfor aiding them to escape, nor for harboring or concealing them. The\ndistinguished senator from Kentucky, [Mr. CLAY,] said, in his late\nspeech, that no instance had ever come to his knowledge where an\naction for harboring runaways had not been maintained in the courts\nof the free states, and damages recovered. But this remedy you will\nhave annulled. The constitution of the United States, and the law of\n1793, being at an end, the law of nature revives. By this law, every\ncase of an escaping slave is but _the self-recovery of stolen goods_.\nWhen they cross the line into a free state, they are free,--as free as\nyou or I. The states being separated, I would as soon return my own\nbrother or sister into bondage, as I would return a fugitive slave.\nBefore God, and Christ, and all Christian men, they are my brothers\nand sisters. As our laws make it piracy to kidnap slaves in Africa, or\nto ship them thence, so it shall be a felony, punishable with death,\nfor any southern master to kidnap a colored man, in a free state, or\ntransport him from it, on the ground of alleged ownership. You are fond\nof quoting Scripture to us, in justification of slavery. We will retort\nthe Scripture, that \u201che that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or _if he\nbe found in his hand_, he shall surely be put to death.\u201d\n\nHere, then, is a free land frontier of about two thousand miles,\nand a free ocean frontier of about twenty-five hundred miles; and\nmore than one half of all your slaves are within two days\u2019 run of\nit. More than one quarter of them are within one night\u2019s run of it.\nThousands and tens of thousands can escape, even while you are dining.\nCanada, now so distant, is brought five hundred miles nearer. The\nunder-ground railroad will be abandoned, and its stock so invested as\nto yield quicker returns. What facilities for escape, too, will the\nocean present. Fleets of vessels are constantly passing and repassing\nwithin a few hours\u2019 sail of the coast. The day for the power and the\ntriumph of those whom you hate as abolitionists will have arrived.\nSteamboats could lie out of sight of land in the day time, run in at\nnight, and be out of sight again before the rising of the sun. To guard\ntwenty-five hundred miles of coast is impossible. If you declare war in\norder to avenge your losses, then that war makes your coast lawfully\naccessible both by day and by night, and multiplies a hundred fold the\nopportunities and facilities for this self-recovery of stolen goods.\n\nI know it is said that some of the Northern States are averse to\nthe reception of blacks. Let us analyze this idea. There are now\nby estimation three millions of slaves. Say one half of these are\neither too old or too young to have the strength or the intelligence\nto escape. A million and a half are left; five hundred thousand of\nthese will have attachments to their own parents or children, or to\ntheir masters, too strong to be broken; or they may be so degraded\nas to be contented with bondage; for their contentment is always one\nof the measures of their degradation. This would leave a million for\nfugitives, consisting wholly of the most able bodied and intelligent.\nThe Northern States comprise a territory of five hundred thousand\nsquare miles. A million of escaped slaves would give but two to\na square mile, and this surely would not be a formidable number,\neven where colorphobia is strongest. Suppose the case of a family\nof fourteen slaves,--two grandparents, too decrepit for labor, six\nathletic sons or daughters, and six grand children. What but affection\nshould prevent the able-bodied and the profitable from escaping, and\nleaving the aged and the young on their masters\u2019 hands. Affection,\nindeed, would bind the parents to their children, but they know too\nwell how often this bond is remorselessly broken by the master; and,\nbesides, an enlightened affection would look to future children and\ntheir posterity forever, as well as to those they already have.\n\nWill you make your laws horribly penal, in order to deter slaves from\nescaping by fear? Will you mutilate them, or scourge them till within\na minute of death? Do so. All such punishments not only nourish the\nlove of freedom, but breed the purpose of revenge; and it is a kind\nof lesson which a brutalized nature is always prone to retaliate with\nimprovements. Will you make the act of escape a capital offence in\na slave, and destroy the victim you cannot restrain? Do so. Though\nyou may inflict death in a paroxysm of wrath, yet of all your penal\ndispensations it is the most merciful. It not only releases the slave\nhimself, but is a prospective and perpetual amnesty,--a true act of\noblivion,--for all his descendants. But this extremity of punishment\nis not likely to be resorted to. In looking over the criminal codes\nof the slave states, I think I have noted cases where the slave is\nnot punished with death for an offence for which a white man is.\nThe _value_ moderates the vengeance. There are not many who, like\nCleopatra, can afford to dissolve a pearl in the cup of revenge, and\nswallow it at a draught, when that pearl will command five hundred or a\nthousand dollars in the market-place.\n\nSouthern gentlemen, when they threaten disunion, cannot surely be\nso much at fault as to forget that slavery exists here as it never\nexisted before in the world. In Greece there were slaves;--in some\ncases, highly intelligent and accomplished slaves. They could have\nescaped if they would; but where should they escape to? All coterminous\nnations,--the whole circle round,--were barbarians. These slaves,\ntherefore, had no place to flee to, where better institutions and\njuster laws prevailed. So it was with Rome. Whither could her slaves\nfly but to barbarous Spain, or more barbarous Gaul, or to some nation\nwhose language they did not understand. Ignorance of language is a more\ninsuperable barrier than mountains or oceans. It is just the reverse\nhere. The English language is spoken on all sides; and our slave land\nis encircled by free land or free ocean,--Jamaica, the Bermudas, and\ntwo thousand miles of northern frontier. And I have lately seen an\nestimate from a credible source, that if an inter-oceanic canal should\nbe opened across the Isthmus of Darien, twelve hundred ships would\nannually pass through it; and, as they sail to and fro, they will skirt\nthe whole of your gulf coast, and the whole of your Atlantic coast, a\ngreat part of the voyage being within sight, or within a day\u2019s sail, of\nyour shores. Now, the ignorant slave knows but little of geography, but\nhe would know of these avenues to freedom, and nothing but death could\nextinguish such knowledge and the hopes it would inspire. I say, sir,\nunder such circumstances, slavery would melt away upon your borders\nlike an iceberg in the tropics. The particles, that is, the individuals\nof the exposed surface, would disappear; and you might as well attempt\nto stop solar evaporation by statutory laws, as to prevent their\nescape. Perhaps a dissolution of the Union is the means foreordained\nby God for the extinction of slavery; and did I not foresee its doom\nbefore any very long period shall have elapsed, without the unspeakable\nhorrors of a civil and a servile war, I cannot say to what conclusion\nthe above considerations would lead my own mind.\n\nHaving shown how the \u201c_redress_\u201d of disunion will operate upon one\nof the grievances alleged as its motive and excuse, let us look at\nanother of those \u201chazards,\u201d whose list, of indefinite length, the south\nis so willing to brave. In case of rebellion or secession, to whom\nwill the territories belong? It is the rule of political as well as\nof municipal law, that whoever retires from a community, leaves its\ncommon property behind him. I have a direct interest and proprietorship\nin the church in my parish, in the schoolhouse in my town, and in\nthe state-house and other public property belonging to my state. But\nif I expatriate myself, I leave all that interest and proprietorship\nbehind me. If the county of Brooke, in Virginia, should secede from the\nState of Virginia, and should annex itself to Ohio or Pennsylvania,\nno one doubts that it would forfeit all its rights to whatever public\nproperty the State of Virginia possesses. In like manner, if the\n\u201c_United States South_\u201d--as the new confederacy has already been named\nby the \u201cRichmond Enquirer,\u201d--should secede, they would, by the very\nact of secession, surrender and abandon all right, title, and interest\nin the new territories. By such secession, all their citizens become\nforeigners. They have no rights under the treaty with Mexico. The new\nSpanish citizen, whose allegiance was transferred by the treaty with\nMexico, and whose citizenship is not yet two years old, would have a\nright to expel them. The \u201cUnited States South,\u201d it is true, may declare\nwar, and attempt the conquest of the territories by force; but in such\na contest, the army and navy and military stores of the government,\nwhich, also, they have lost by secession, will be turned against them.\nBut, I venture to prophesy, that if the slave states shall pass through\none war, single-handed, they will afterwards be the most peaceable\nnation the world ever saw. To every frontier country and to every\nnaval power, they have given three millions of hostages for their good\nbehavior.\n\nLet us look at a third grievance they mean to redress, and a third\n\u201chazard\u201d they are ready to encounter. They complain of northern\nagitation on the subject of slavery, and northern instigation of the\nslaves themselves. On the subject of \u201cagitation,\u201d I deny that the north\nhas ever overstepped the limits of their constitutional rights. They\nhave never agitated the question of slavery in the states. It has been\nonly in regard to slavery in this District, or the annexation of Texas,\nor the acquisition of territory for the extension of slavery, or the\nimprisonment of her own citizens in southern ports, or a denial of the\ninviolable right of petition;--it has been only on such subjects that\nthe north has lifted up the voice of expostulation and remonstrance.\nEven these constitutional rights she has used forbearingly. She has\nnever exerted force, nor threatened force, either to maintain the right\nof petition or to liberate her own citizens imprisoned in southern\njails.\n\nIn regard to instigating slaves to escape, I acknowledge there have\nbeen some instances of it; but they have been few. The perpetrators\nhave been tried and severely punished, and the north has acquiesced;\nfor they acknowledge that, if a man will go into a slave state and\nviolate its laws, he must be judged by them. But I have never known\nof a single case,--I believe there is no well-authenticated case on\nrecord,--where a northern man has instigated the slaves to rise in\nrebellion, and to retaliate upon their masters for the wrongs which\nthey and their race have suffered. As I dread indiscriminate massacre\nand conflagration, I should abhor the perpetrator of such a crime. But\nwill separation bring relief or security? No, sir; it will enhance\nthe danger a myriad fold. Thousands will start up, who will think\nit as much a duty and an honor to assist the slaves in any contest\nwith their masters, as to assist Greeks, or Poles, or Hungarians, in\nresisting their tyrants. Two things exist at the north which the south\ndoes not duly appreciate,--the depth and intensity of our abhorrence\nof slavery, and that reverence for the law which keeps it in check.\nThe latter counterpoises the former. We are a law-abiding people.\nBut release us from our obligations, tear off from the bond with\nyour own hands the signatures which bind our consciences and repress\nour feelings, destroy those compensations which the world and which\nposterity would derive from a continuance of this Union, and well may\nyou tremble for the result. I have seen fugitive slaves at the north,\nand heard from their own lips the dreadful recital of their wrongs:\nand if I am any judge of the natural language of men; if I can divine\nfrom the outward expression what passions are burning within, each one\nof them had a hundred conflagrations and a hundred massacres in his\nbosom. They felt as you and I should feel if we had been subjected to\nAlgerine bondage. And do you doubt, sir, does any southern gentleman on\nthis floor doubt, for one moment, that if he were seized by a Barbary\ncorsair and sold into Algerine bondage, and carried a hundred miles\ninto the interior, that he would improve the first opportunity to\nescape, though at every step in his flight he should crush out a human\nlife, and should leave an ever-widening expanse of conflagration behind\nhim? If agitation and instigation are evils now, woe to those who would\nseek to mitigate or to repress them by the remedies of disunion and\ncivil war. Let men who live in a powder-mill beware how they madden\npyrotechnists.\n\nBut it is said that if dissolution occurs, the \u201cUnited States South\u201d\ncan form an alliance with Great Britain. And are there no instigators\nand abolitionists in England? Yes, sir, ten in England where there is\none at the north. Frederick Douglass has just returned from England,\nwhere he has enjoyed the honors of an ovation. William Wells Brown,\nanother fugitive slave, is now travelling in England. His journeys\nfrom place to place are like the \u201cprogresses\u201d of one of the magnates of\nthat land,--passing wherever he will with free tickets, and enjoying\nthe hospitalities of the most refined and educated men. The very last\nsteamer brought out an account of his public reception at Newcastle. An\nentertainment was given him which was attended by four hundred ladies\nand gentlemen. Men of high distinction and character adorned it by\ntheir presence. The ladies made up a purse of twenty sovereigns, which\nthey gave him. It was presented in a beautiful purse that one of their\nnumber,--the successful competitor for the honor,--had wrought with\nher own hands. All their generosity and kindness they considered as\nrepaid by hearing from his own lips the pathetic story of his captivity\nand the heroism of his escape. Sir, every man who has travelled in\nEngland knows that there are large, wealthy, and refined circles there,\nno member of which would allow a slaveholder to sit at his table or\nenter his doors. Not only churches, but moral and religious men, the\nworld over, have begun to read slaveholders out of their communion and\ncompanionship. If the south expects to rid itself of agitation and\nabolitionism by rupturing its bonds with the north and substituting\nan alliance with Great Britain for our present constitution, they may\nenvy the wisdom of the geese who invited the fox to stand sentinel over\nthem while they slept. Northern interference will increase a hundred\nfold; and the whole power and wealth of British abolitionism, not\nonly founded on moral principle but nursed by national pride, will be\nbrought to bear directly upon them.\n\nI said that the slave does not know much of geography; but he\nunderstands enough of it to know where lies the free frontier. The\nslave does not know much of astronomy; but there is one star in the\nfirmament which is dearer to him than all the heavenly host were\nto the Chaldeans. He worships the north star with more than Persian\nidolatry. But let the south form commercial alliances with Great\nBritain; let the carrying trade be carried on in British vessels; and\nthe slave will find a star in the east as beautiful to his eye, and as\ninspiring to his hopes, as the star in the north.\n\nIs the case of the _Amistad_ forgotten, where a few ignorant, degraded\nwretches, fresh from the jungles of benighted Africa herself, seized\nupon the vessel in which they were transported, and compelled the\nmaster, under peril of his life, to steer for the north star,--that\nlight which God kindled in the heavens, and which he will as soon\nextinguish as he will extinguish the love of liberty which he has\nkindled in every human breast?\n\nAnd will a slave, escaping to Great Britain, or to any of her colonial\npossessions, be reclaimable? Examine Somerset\u2019s case for an answer.\nNo, sir. Neither the third clause of the second section of the fourth\narticle of the constitution, nor the law of 1793, will ever be extended\nover the Three Kingdoms or their dependencies.\n\nIt surely is not beneath the dignity of the place or the occasion to\nlook at another of those \u201chazards\u201d which the south are invoking. They\nare proud of their past history, and I doubt not their reflecting\nand patriotic men are at least reasonably solicitous of their future\nfame. When they meet in august council to inaugurate the great event\nof establishing an independent confederacy of slave states, and of\ndissolving the political bands which now unite them with us, \u201ca decent\nrespect to the opinions of mankind\u201d will \u201crequire them to declare the\ncauses which had impelled them to the separation.\u201d And will they find\na model for their manifesto in that glorious Declaration of American\nIndependence which their own immortal Jefferson prepared, and to which\nmany of the greatest of all their historic names are subscribed? Alas,\nthey will have to read that Declaration, as the devil reads Scripture,\nbackwards! I know not what may be the rhetorical terms and phrases\nof the new Declaration, but I do know that its _historic_ form and\nsubstance cannot be widely different from this:--\n\n\u201cWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that men are not created\nequal; that they are not endowed by their Creator with inalienable\nrights; that white men, of the Anglo-Saxon race, were born to rob, and\ntyrannize, and enjoy, and black men, of the African race, to labor,\nand suffer, and obey; that a man, with a drop of African blood in his\nveins, has no political rights, and therefore shall never vote; that\nhe has no pecuniary rights, and therefore whatever he may earn or\nreceive, belongs to his master; that he has no judicial rights, and\ntherefore he shall never be heard as a witness to redress wrong, or\nviolence, or robbery, committed by white men upon him; that he has\nno parental rights, and therefore his children may be torn from his\nbosom, at the pleasure or caprice of his owner; that he has no marital\nrights, and therefore his wife may be lawfully sold away into distant\nbondage, or violated before his eyes; that he has no rights of mind or\nof conscience, and therefore he shall never be allowed to read or to\nthink, and all his aspirations for improvement shall be extinguished;\nthat he has no religious rights, and therefore he shall never read the\nBible; that he has no heaven-descended, God-given rights of freedom,\nand therefore he and his posterity shall be slaves forever. We hold\nthat governments were instituted among men to secure and fortify this\nascendency of one race over another; that this ascendency has its\nfoundation in force ratified by law, and in ignorance and debasement\ninflicted by intelligence and superiority; and when any people, with\nwhom we are politically associated, would debar us from propagating our\ndoctrines or extending our domination into new realms and over free\nterritories, it becomes our duty to separate from them, and to hold\nthem, as we hold the rest of mankind,--friends when they make slaves,\nenemies when they make freemen.\u201d\n\nI say, sir, of whatever words and phrases the southern \u201cMagna Charta\u201d\nmay consist, this, or something like this, must be its substance and\nreality.\n\nSo the preamble to their constitution must run in this wise: \u201cWe, the\npeople of the \u2018United States South,\u2019 in order to form a more perfect\nconspiracy against the rights of the African race, establish injustice,\ninsure domestic slavery, provide for holding three millions of our\nfellow-beings, with all the countless millions of their posterity, in\nbondage, and to secure to ourselves and our posterity the enjoyment of\npower, and luxury, and sloth, do ordain and establish this constitution\nfor the \u2018United States South.\u2019\u201d\n\nSir, should a civil war ensue between the north and the south,\n(which may God in his mercy avert,) in consequence of an attempt to\ndissolve this Union, and the certain resistance which would be made\nto such an attempt, it would be difficult to exaggerate the immediate\nevils which would befall the interests of New England and some other\nparts of the north. Our manufactures and our commerce would suffer\nat least a temporary derangement. But we have boundless resources\nin our enterprise and our intelligence. Knowledge and industry are\nrecuperative energies that can never long be balked in their quest\nof prosperity. The people that bore the embargo of 1807, and the\nwar of 1812, when all their capital was embarked in commerce, can\nsurvive any change that does not stop the revolution of the seasons\nor suspend the great laws of nature. And, when the day of peace again\nreturns, business will again return to its old channels. The south,\nnotwithstanding any personal hostility, will be as ready to take\nnorthern gold as though it had come from the English mint; and they\nwill employ those first, who will do their manufacturing or their\ncommercial labor cheapest and best. Gold is a great pacificator between\nnations; and, in this money-loving age, mutual interests will, in the\nend, subdue mutual hostilities. Our share, therefore, of the calamities\nof a civil war, will be mainly of a pecuniary nature. They will not be\nintolerable. They will invade none of the securities of home; they will\nnot associate poison with our daily food, nor murder and conflagration\nwith our nightly repose; nor black violation with the sanctities of our\ndaughters and our wives.\n\nEven in a pecuniary point of view, a dissolution of our political ties\nwould cause less immediate and intense suffering at the north than at\nthe south. Our laws and institutions are all framed so as to encourage\nthe poor man, and, by education, to elevate his children above the\ncondition of their parents; but their laws and institutions all tend to\naggrandize the rich, and to perpetuate power in their hands. Were it\nnot for the visions of horror and of bloodshed which southern threats\nhave so intimately associated with this controversy, one remarkable\nfeature, which has hitherto been eclipsed, would have been most\nconspicuous.\n\nWith every philanthropic northern man, a collateral motive for keeping\nthe new territories free is, that they may be a land of hope and of\npromise to the poor man, to whichever of all our states he may belong;\nwhere he may go and find a home and a homestead and abundance. But the\nsouth, in attempting to open these territories to the slaveholders,\nwould give them to the rich alone,--would give them to less than\nthree hundred thousand persons out of a population of six millions.\nThe interests of the poorer classes at the south all demand free\nterritory, where they can go and rise at once to an equality with\ntheir fellow-citizens, which they never can do at home. They are\nnatural abolitionists, and unless blinded by ignorance, or overawed\nby their social superiors, they will so declare themselves. Every\nintelligent and virtue-loving wife or mother, at the south, when she\nthinks of her husband and her sons, is forced to be an abolitionist.\nThe attempt, therefore, to subject the new territories to the law of\nslavery is not made in the name of one half of the people of the United\nStates; it is not made for the six millions, more or less, who inhabit\nthe slave states; but it is made for less than three hundred thousand\nslaveholders among more than twenty millions of people.\n\nThere is one other \u201chazard,\u201d sir, which the south invokes and defies,\nwhich to her high-minded and honor-loving sons, should be more\nformidable than all the rest. She is defying the Spirit of the Age.\nShe is not only defying the judgment of contemporaries, but invoking\nupon herself the execrations of posterity. Mark the progress in the\npublic sentiment of Christendom, within the last few centuries, on\nthe subject of slavery and the rights of man. After the discovery of\nthis continent by Columbus, the ecclesiastics of Spain held councils\nto discuss the question, whether the aborigines of this country had\nor had not souls to be saved. They left this question undecided; but\nthey said, as it was possible that the nations of the new world might\nhave an immortal spirit, they would send them the gospel, so as to\nbe on the safe side; and the mission of Las Casas was the result. In\nthe time of Lord Coke, only a little more than two centuries ago, the\ndoctrine was openly avowed and held, in Westminster Hall, that the\nheathen had no rights; and therefore that it was lawful for Christians\nto drive them out of their inheritance, and to despoil them, as the\nJews despoiled the Egyptians and drove out the Canaanites. During\nthe seventeenth century, all the commercial nations of Europe engaged\nin the African slave trade, without compunction or reproach. In the\nlast, or eighteenth century, the horrors of that trade were aggravated\nand blackened by such demoniacal atrocities, as, were it not for\nsome redeeming attributes among men, would have made the human race\nimmortally hateful. Even when our own constitution was formed, in 1787,\nthis dreadful traffic was not only sanctioned, but a solemn compact was\nentered into, by which all prohibition of it was prohibited for twenty\nyears. Yet, in the year 1820, after the lapse of only thirty-three\nyears, this very trade was declared to be piracy,--the highest offence\nknown to the law,--and the felon\u2019s death was denounced against all\nprincipals and abettors. We are often reminded by gentlemen of the\nsouth, that, at the time of the adoption of that constitution, slavery\nexisted in almost every state in the Union; and that some northern\nmerchants, by a devilish alchemy, transmuted gold from its tears and\nblood. But can they read no lesson as to the progress of the age from\nthe fact that all those states have since abjured slavery of their own\nfree will; and that, at the present day, it would be more tolerable\nfor any northern merchant, rather than to be reasonably suspected\nof the guilt of this traffic, to be cast into the fiery furnace of\nNebuchadnezzar, seven times heated? In Europe, the tide of liberty,\nthough meeting with obstructions from firm-seated dynasties and\ntime-strengthened prerogative, still rises, and sweeps onward with\nunebbing flow. In France, revolutions follow each other in quicker and\nquicker succession. These revolutions are only gigantic struggles of\nthe popular will to escape from oppression; and, at each struggle, the\ngiant snaps a chain.\n\nGreat Britain, which in former times sent more vessels to the coast\nof Africa to kidnap and to transport its natives, than all the other\nnations of the earth together, now maintains a fleet upon the same\ncoast to suppress the trade she so lately encouraged. Three times,\nduring the present century, has that government escaped civil commotion\nby making large concessions to popular rights. Since the year 1814,\nwritten constitutions have been extorted by the people from more than\nthree fourths of all the sovereigns of Europe. What a tempest now beats\nupon Austria, from all points of the compass, because, during the last\nseason, she attempted only to half enslave the Hungarians,--because\nshe attempted to do what, during the last century, she might have done\nwithout a remonstrance! The rights of individuals, not less than the\nrights of communities, have emerged from oblivion into recognition,\nand have become law. Penal codes have been ameliorated, and barbarous\ncustoms abolished. There are now but two places on the globe where a\nwoman can be publicly whipped,--in Hungary and in the Southern States!\nAnd the universal scorn and hissing with which the rulers of the former\ncountry have been visited for their women-whipping, and their execution\nof those whose sole crime was their love of freedom, only foretoken\nthat fiercer scorn and louder hissing with which, from all sides of the\ncivilized world, the latter will soon be visited. Let the high-toned\nand chivalrous sons of the south,--those \u201cwho feel a stain upon their\nhonor like a wound,\u201d--think of all this, as one in the long catalogue\nof \u201chazards\u201d upon which they are rushing.\n\nSir, the leading minds in a community are mainly responsible for the\nfortunes of that community. Under God, the men of education, of talent,\nand of attainment, turn the tides of human affairs. Where great social\ndistinctions exist, the intelligence and the wealth of a few stimulate\nor suppress the volition of the masses. They are the sensorium of the\nbody politic, and their social inferiors are the mighty limbs, which,\nfor good or for evil, they wield. Such is the relation in which the\nthree hundred thousand, or less than three hundred thousand slave\nowners of the south, hold to their fellow-citizens. They can light\nthe torch of civil war, or they can quench it. But if civil war once\nblazes forth, it is not given to mortal wisdom to extinguish or control\nit. It comes under other and mightier laws, under other and mightier\nagencies. Human passions feed the combustion; and the flame which the\nbreath of man has kindled, the passions of the multitude,--stronger\nthan the breath of the hurricane,--will spread. Among these passions,\none of the strongest and boldest is the love of liberty, which dwells\nin every bosom. In the educated and civilized, this love of liberty is\na regulated but paramount desire; in the ignorant and debased, it is\na wild, vehement instinct. It is an indestructible part of the nature\nof man. Weakened it may be, but it cannot be destroyed. It is a thread\nof asbestos in the web of the soul, which all the fires of oppression\ncannot consume.\n\nWith the creation of every human being, God creates this love of\nliberty anew. The slave shares it with his master, and it has\ndescended into his bosom from the same high source. Whether dormant\nor wakeful, it only awaits an opportunity to become the mastering\nimpulse of the soul. Civil war is that opportunity. Under oppression\nit bides its time. Civil war is the fulness of time. It is literal\ntruth that the south fosters within its homes three millions of latent\nrebellions. Imbedded in a material spontaneously combustible, it\nlaughs at fire. Has it any barriers to keep the spirit of liberty,\nwhich has electrified the Old World, from crossing its own borders,\nand quickening its bondmen into mutinous life?--not all of them, but\none in ten thousand, one in a hundred thousand of them. If there is no\nSpartacus among them, with his lofty heroism and his masterly skill\nfor attack and defence, is the race of Nat Turners extinct, who, in\ntheir religious musings, and their dumb melancholy, take the impulses\nof their own passions for the inspiration of God, and, after prayer\nand the eucharist, proceed to massacre and conflagration? In ignorant\nand imbruted minds, a thousand motives work which we cannot divine.\nA thousand excitements madden them, which we cannot control. It may\nbe a text of Scripture, it may be the contents of a wine vault; but\nthe result will be the same,--havoc wherever there is wealth, murder\nwherever there is life, violation wherever there is chastity. Let this\nwildfire of a servile insurrection break out in but one place in a\nstate; nay, in but ten places, or in five places in all the fifteen\nstates; and then, in all their length and breadth, there will be no\nmore quiet sleep. Not Macbeth, but the angel of retribution, will\n\u201cmurder sleep.\u201d The mother will clasp her infant to her breast, and,\nwhile she clasps it, die a double death. But, where will the slaves\nfind arms? \u201c_Furor arma ministrat._\u201d Rage will supply their weapons.\nRead the history of those slaves who have escaped from bondage; mark\ntheir endurance and their contrivance, and let incredulity cease\nforever. They have hid themselves under coverts; dug holes and burrowed\nin the earth for concealment; sunk themselves in ponds, and sustained\nlife by breathing through a reed, until their pursuers had passed by;\nwandered in \u201cDismal Swamps,\u201d far away from the habitations of men;\nalmost fasting for forty days and forty nights, like Christ in the\nwilderness; crushed themselves into boxes, but of half a coffin\u2019s\ndimensions, to be nailed up and transported hundreds of miles, as\nmerchandise; and, in this horrible condition, have endured hunger and\nthirst, and, standing upon the head, without a groan or a sigh;--and,\nwill men, who devise such things, and endure such things, be balked in\ntheir purposes of hope and of revenge, when the angel of destruction,\nin the form of the angel of liberty, descends into their breasts?\n\nThe state of slavery is always a state of war. In its deepest\ntranquillity, it is but a truce. Active hostilities are liable at any\nhour to be resumed. Civil war between the north and the south,--any\nthing that brings the quickening idea of freedom home to the mind of\nthe slave; that supplies him with facilities of escape, or immunities\nfor revenge,--will unleash the bloodhounds of insurrection. Can you\nmuster armies in secret, and march them in secret, so that the slave\nshall not know that they are mustered and marched to perpetuate his\nbondage, and to extend the bondage of his race? Was not Major Dade\u2019s\nwhole command supposed to be massacred through the treachery of a\nslave? A foray within your borders places you in such a relation to the\nslave that you are helpless without him, and in danger of assassination\nwith him. He that defends slavery by war, wars against the eternal laws\nof God, and rushes upon the thick bosses of Jehovah\u2019s buckler. Such are\nsome of the \u201chazards\u201d which the leaders of public opinion at the south,\nthe legislators and guides of men in this dark and perilous hour, are\ninvoking upon themselves and their fellows; not for the interests of\nthe whole, but for the fancied interests of the slaveholders alone,\nand against the real interest of a vast majority of the people. May\nGod give that wisdom to the followers which he seems not yet to have\nimparted to the leaders.\n\nSir, in these remarks, I have studiously abstained from every thing\nthat seemed to me like retaliation or unkindness. I certainly have\nsuffered no purposed word of crimination to pass my lips. If I have\nuttered severe truths, I have not sought for severe language in\nwhich to clothe them. What I have said, I have said as to a brother\nsleeping on the brink of a precipice, where one motion of his troubled\nsleeping, or of his bewildered awaking, might plunge him into\nremediless ruin.\n\nIn conclusion, I have only to add, that such is my solemn and abiding\nconviction of the character of slavery, that under a full sense of my\nresponsibility to my country and my God, I deliberately say, better\ndisunion,--better a civil or a servile war,--better any thing that\nGod in his providence shall send, than an extension of the bounds of\nslavery.\n\nUpon the close of Mr. Mann\u2019s remarks,\n\nMR. BURT, of South Carolina, rose and said that he had not interrupted\nthe gentleman from Massachusetts during his speech, but he presumed he\ndid not wish to have any error go forth under the sanction of his name;\nand he therefore called upon him to retract what he had said in regard\nto slaves ever being exempted from capital punishment for crimes for\nwhich the whites were executed. He called upon him also to withdraw the\nimputation that the pecuniary value of the slave was a motive for any\nsuch difference in the laws respecting them. He remarked that, by the\nlaws of the Southern States, such a distinction is not made. I know,\nsaid he, no instance in which it exists. On the contrary, slaves are\npunished capitally for offences that are not so punished when committed\nby white men. In South Carolina, slaves have never been admitted to\nthe benefit of clergy for offences at common law; and thus a slave\nis punished capitally for maiming or grievously beating a white man.\nMr. Burt was also understood to say that there were \u201csix or eight,\u201d\nor \u201ceight or ten,\u201d offences in South Carolina for which slaves were\npunished capitally, but for which white men were not.\n\nMR. MANN replied that he had stated what he believed to be true; but\nif he had fallen into any mistake, he should be most happy to be\ncorrected. He was assured also by the gentleman from Georgia, on\nhis left, [Mr. TOOMBS,] that no such distinction existed as he had\nsupposed; and it was but reasonable to believe that those gentlemen\nwere more conversant with the southern laws than himself.\n\nMR. MANN added that he, (Mr. Mann,) could not be expected to have the\nstatute books of the Southern States before him, at that time, to meet\nso unexpected a denial. Neither could he be expected by any honorable\ngentleman to make a retraction until he had time to see whether the\nground he had taken were tenable.\n\n NOTE BY MR. MANN. On repairing to the Law library to ascertain\n which party was right in regard to the above difference of opinion,\n the second book I opened contained at least three cases, where\n the courts were authorized to sentence a slave to be transported\n for the commission of an offence, for which a white man must be\n unconditionally hung. See North Carolina Rev. Stat. vol. i. chap.\n 3, \u00a7\u00a7 36, 37, 39. Of course, the reason of this difference is the\n pecuniary value of the slave. Hung, he would be worthless; transported\n to Cuba, he might bring five hundred dollars.\n\n The law was formerly so in Mr. Burt\u2019s own state.\n\n In the seventh volume of the Statutes at Large of South Carolina, No.\n 344, \u00a7 5, I find the following: \u201cAnd _whereas_, it has been found by\n experience that the execution of several negroes for felonies of a\n smaller nature, by which they have been condemned to die, has been of\n great charge and expense to the public, and will continue, (if some\n remedy be not found,) to be very chargeable and burdensome to this\n province; _Be it therefore enacted_, by the authority aforesaid, that\n all negroes or other slaves who shall be convicted and found guilty of\n any capital crime, (murder excepted,) for which they used to receive\n the sentence of death, as the law directs, shall be transported from\n this province, by the public receiver for the time being, to any other\n of his majesty\u2019s plantations, or other foreign part, where he shall\n think fitting to send them, _for the use of the public_.\u201d\n\n The slave condemned to transportation was to be appraised, and his\n master paid out of the public treasury, and this amount was, of\n course, to be reimbursed by what should be received from the foreign\n sale. From the statement of Mr. Burt, that no such law _now_ exists in\n South Carolina, I suppose the above enactment must have been repealed.\n\n The _fact_ stated in the speech is therefore proved, although\n the instances may be fewer than I had supposed. As to the motive\n attributed, there can be no doubt. The cases are most numerous in the\n Southern States, where white men are merely _imprisoned_ for offences\n for which slaves are whipped, branded, and cropped, or otherwise\n corporally punished. The slave\u2019s time is too valuable to be lost in a\n prison, but the white man\u2019s is not; the white man\u2019s skin is too sacred\n to be flayed or branded, but the slave\u2019s is not.\n\n But laws which punish \u201c_six or eight_,\u201d or \u201c_eight or ten_,\u201d or any\n other number of offences with death, when committed by slaves, while\n the same offences receive a milder penalty when committed by whites;\n or laws denying the benefit of clergy, (where that relic of barbarism\n still prevails,) to a slave, while it is granted to a white man, are\n surely among the greatest atrocities recorded in the history of the\n race. Ponder for a moment upon the accursed fact. A freeman acting\n under all the motives to self-respect; moved by all the incentives\n to good conduct; enjoying all the means of education; inspired by\n all the influences of the gospel; and capable of comprehending all\n the powerful restraints and the sublime rewards connected with a\n hereafter, _exonerated_ from the punishment of death; while death, in\n all the horrors with which ignorance and superstition can invest it,\n is inflicted upon men who are subjected to bondage; deprived of all\n motive for honorable conduct; debarred from every avenue to knowledge\n by cruel penalties; blinded to the light of the gospel; and, in a\n land of boasted Christianity, left in the darkness of heathenism!\n These are not the customs of a lawless banditti, of outcasts or\n renegades, but solemn enactments of state legislatures, devised by\n talent and eminence, enforced and preserved by the oligarchical few,\n by the virtual nobility and flower of populous communities. Such\n laws demand a return of five talents, under penalty of death, where\n only one talent had been confided; they absolve him who had received\n five talents, though he brings none of them back. Such laws make the\n Scriptures read, that the servant who knoweth his lord\u2019s will, but\n doeth it not, shall be beaten with but few stripes; but the servant\n who did not know it, whom his very master debarred from knowing it,\n shall be beaten with many stripes; for unto whomsoever much is given,\n but little shall be required; but to whom men have committed much, of\n him little shall be asked. What shall be thought of a system, AND OF\n EXTENDING A SYSTEM, which so perverts the hearts of men, otherwise\n clear-headed, high-minded, and generous!\n\n What more fitting theme could be conceived, were the arch-enemy of\n mankind to compose a _burlesque_, in ridicule of _Republics_, to be\n represented in that Theatre which is all \u201c_Pit_\u201d?\n\n It is not, however, the _existence_ of slavery, but its _extension_,\n we now intend to avert.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe last paragraph in the foregoing speech gave rise to the following\ncorrespondence, which was published in the National Intelligencer:--\n\n\n                         LETTER FROM MR. MANN.\n\nMESSRS. EDITORS; Your paper of this morning contains a portion of a\nspeech of the Hon. MR. BADGER, of North Carolina, delivered in the\nSenate on the 19th instant, in which he comments upon some remarks\nlately made by me in the House of Representatives. The respect which,\n(without any personal acquaintance,) I have long entertained for\nthis distinguished senator, would deter me from noticing any such\nmiscontructions of my remarks as a candid mind might inadvertently\ncommit; but the misrepresentations which the senator has made are so\ngratuitous and gross, that I am constrained to notice them. I therefore\nask the favor of a place in your paper, where he can answer me, if he\npleases, though he chose a place for his animadversions where he knew I\ncould not answer him.\n\nThe following is a passage in his speech:--\n\n \u201cNor, Mr. President, must I forget that, in considering the effect\n which this proviso is likely to have upon the condition of the\n southern mind, we must look to what has been said by northern\n gentlemen in connection with this subject. Permit me to call the\n attention of the Senate to a very brief extract from a speech\n delivered in the other end of the capitol:--\n\n \u201c\u2018In conclusion, I have only to add, that such is my solemn and\n abiding conviction of the character of slavery, that, under a full\n sense of my responsibility to my country and my God, I deliberately\n say, better disunion, better a civil or a servile war, better any\n thing that God in his providence shall send, than an extension of the\n bounds of slavery.\u2019\n\n \u201cSEVERAL SENATORS. Whose speech is that?\n\n \u201cA SENATOR. Mr. Mann\u2019s.\n\n \u201cMR. BADGER. We have heard much, Mr. President, of the violence of\n southern declamation. I have most carefully avoided reading the\n speeches of southern gentlemen who were supposed to be liable to that\n charge. I happened, however, in the early part of this session, and\n before the other House was organized, to be in that body when there\n were some bursts of feeling and denunciation from southern gentlemen,\n which I heard with pain, mortification, almost with anguish of mind.\n But, sir, these were bursts of feeling; these were passionate and\n excited declarations; these had every thing to plead for them as being\n spontaneous and fiery ebullitions of men burning at the moment under\n a sense of wrong. And where, among these, will you find any thing\n equal to the cool, calm, deliberate announcement of the philosophic\n mind that delivered in the other House the passage which I have read:\n \u2018Better disunion, better a civil or a servile war, better any thing\n that God in his providence shall send, than an extension of the bounds\n of slavery.\u2019\n\n \u201cIn other words, it is the deliberate, settled, fixed opinion of\n the honorable gentleman who made that speech, that rather than the\n extension of slavery _one foot_,--yes sir, there is no qualification,\n _one foot_,--he would prefer a disunion of these states; he would\n prefer all the horrors of civil war, all the monstrous, untold,\n and almost inconceivable atrocities of a servile war; he would\n pile the earth with dead; he would light up heaven with midnight\n conflagrations; all this, yea, and more,--all the vials of wrath which\n God in his providence might see fit to pour down upon us, he would\n suffer, rather than permit, not one man who is now free to be made a\n slave,--that would be extravagant enough,--but rather than permit one\n man who now stands upon the soil of North Carolina a slave, to stand a\n slave upon the soil of New Mexico:\n\n \u201cYes, sir, here is a sacrifice of life and happiness, and of all that\n is dear to the black and white races together, to a mere idealism,--a\n sacrifice proposed by a gentleman who claims to be a philosopher,\n and to speak the language of calm deliberation,--a sacrifice of our\n glorious Union proposed by a patriot,--not rather than freemen should\n be made slaves,--not rather than the condition of even one human being\n should be made worse than it now is,--but rather than one man shall\n remove from one spot of the earth to another without an improvement\n of his condition, without passing from slavery to freedom. Sir,\n after that announcement, thus made, which I beg to say, sir, I did\n not seek,--for the speech I have never read; the extract I found in\n one of the newspapers of the day,--after that announcement, talk not\n of southern violence, talk not of southern egotism, talk not of our\n disposition to sacrifice to our peculiar notions and our peculiar\n relations, the peace and happiness, the growing prosperity, and the\n mutual concord of this great Union. Now, sir, if that announcement\n goes abroad into the southern country, attended by the wanton\n application of this Wilmot proviso, an irritating commentary upon that\n patriotic announcement, what can be expected? What but the deepest\n emotions of indignation in the bosoms of those born and brought up\n where slavery exists, and taking totally different views of the\n institution from those which are taken by the honorable gentleman\n who has placed himself upon this cool and deliberate, humane and\n philosophical position.\u201d\n\n By his own confession, Mr. Badger had not read my speech. He takes\n up a single sentence, therefore, for comment, without the justice of\n looking at the context. He is like the man who should declare that the\n Scriptures say \u201cthere is no God,\u201d when it is the fool, and not the\n Bible, that makes the declaration. My speech discussed the question\n of extending slavery over our territories and the proposed southern\n remedy for prohibiting that extension, namely, the disunion of the\n states. The conclusion to which I came was, that the north had better\n submit to the application of the southern remedy, than to surrender\n the new territories to all the horrors of bondage. Beyond our present\n limits \u201cno more slave territories and no more slave states,\u201d was the\n exact ground I took. But Mr. Badger represents me as saying that I\n would \u201cprefer a disunion of these states,\u201d and all the other evils in\n his long and labored catalogue, \u201crather than the extension of slavery\n _one foot_;\u201d \u201cyes,\u201d he repeats with emphasis, \u201c_one foot_.\u201d Now, I\n never made such a declaration as this. I never said any thing to give\n countenance or color to such a declaration. Many persons, seeing the\n statement of the honorable senator, and relying upon his character for\n fairness and veracity, have believed that I did. But he has led them\n into the error. My argument and conclusion had reference to new slave\n territories, or to a new slave territory. Mr. Badger construes, or\n rather misconstrues this to mean \u201cone foot.\u201d If my speech is fairly\n susceptible of this construction, I wish so far to retract it. He\n shall have my consent to a \u201c_one foot_\u201d territory, and to as many\n slaves as he can hold on it under the _local law_.\n\n Mr. Badger further charges me with invoking all the calamities he\n enumerates, \u201crather than permit one man who now stands upon the soil\n of North Carolina a slave, to stand a slave upon the soil of New\n Mexico.\u201d This statement is not merely forced, but fabricated. Surely I\n said no such thing. I intimated nor hinted at, nor thought of such a\n thing. There may be little choice whether any one man who now \u201cstands\n a slave,\u201d shall \u201cstand a slave\u201d in one place or in another, _if that\n be all_. In a national point of view, and looking at the subject as\n a statesman, the sentiment imputed to me is simply ridiculous. But\n this wrongful imputation of such a sentiment, without substance or\n semblance to justify it, is far worse than ridiculous; it becomes\n unjust and ungenerous; and is none the less so for being made in a\n place where he knew I could not repel it. The whole scope and stress\n of my argument went against yielding any such portion of our new\n acquisitions to slavery as would form either a state or a territory.\n The eight or ten southern legislatures, the eight or ten governors\n of southern states, the southern Senators and Representatives in\n Congress, and the confederates in getting up the Nashville Convention,\n have never, to my knowledge, proposed a compromise on the platform of\n a \u201c_one foot_\u201d territory, or expressed their readiness to spare the\n Union if \u201cone man who stands a slave in North Carolina,\u201d is permitted\n to \u201cstand a slave in New Mexico.\u201d When such an issue is brought\n forward seriously, it will be met seriously. But the real issue on\n this point is, (and the senator must know it,) whether the victims of\n slavery shall be indefinitely multiplied by the addition to its domain\n of regions now free. That the creation of a new slave territory will\n increase the victims of slavery, is a proposition too plain to be\n argued. To deny this, is to assert that if slavery had been confined\n to the State of Virginia, or to the settlement at Jamestown, where the\n first cargo of slaves was landed, the present number of slaves in this\n country would be no less than it now is; or, in other words, there\n would now be three millions of slaves within the limits of Virginia,\n or within the limits of Jamestown.\n\n I have made this reply to the honorable senator from North Carolina\n with great reluctance, and from no motive of personal unkindness. I\n have long been accustomed to regard his character with respect, and\n his opinions with deference; and I am happy in an opportunity to\n express a feeling of personal gratitude for his former endeavors to\n avert from the councils of the nation the subject-matter of this most\n lamentable contention.\n\n                                    Very truly, yours, &c., HORACE MANN.\n\n                                             WASHINGTON, March 28, 1850.\n\n P. S. Another point in the honorable senator\u2019s speech, in which he\n attempts to vindicate the penal slave code of North Carolina and\n of the other Southern States from the taint of cupidity, may be\n safely left without comment to intelligent men. Every student of the\n _criminal_ legislation of the Southern States in regard to slaves,\n knows that their laws are replete with proofs where the sensibilities\n of a man are sacrificed to the spirit of gain.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[8] In February, 1847, Mr. Calhoun offered a series of resolutions in\nthe Senate of the United States, among which was the following:--\n\n\u201c_Resolved_, That it is a fundamental principle in our political creed,\nthat a people, in forming a constitution, have the unconditional right\nto form and adopt the government which they may think best calculated\nto secure their liberty, prosperity and happiness; and, in conformity\nthereto, no other condition is imposed by the Federal Constitution\non a state, in order to be admitted into this Union, except that its\nconstitution shall be \u201crepublican;\u201d and that the imposition of any\nother by Congress would not only be in violation of the constitution,\nbut in direct conflict with the principle on which our political system\nrests.\u201d\n\nIn sustaining these resolutions, he said,--\n\n\u201cSir, I hold it to be a fundamental principle of our political system\nthat the people have a right to establish what government they may\nthink proper for themselves; that every state ABOUT to become a member\nof this Union has a right to FORM ITS OWN GOVERNMENT AS IT PLEASES;\nand that, in order to be admitted, there is but one qualification, and\nthat is, that the government shall be republican. There is no express\nprovision to that effect, but it results from that important section\nwhich guaranties to every state in this Union a republican form of\ngovernment.\u201d\n\nMr. Senator Downs, of Louisiana, offered the following resolution:--\n\n\u201c_Resolved_, That it is competent and expedient, and not inconsistent\nwith the practice of the government in some cases, to admit California,\nor such portion of it as Congress may deem proper, immediately into\nthe Union, on an equal footing with the other states; and that the\ncommittee on ---- be instructed to report a bill for that purpose, for\nthat portion of California which lies west of the summit of the Sierra\nNevada mountains.\u201d\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe doctrine of these resolutions was fully indorsed by the Washington\n_Union_, speaking, doubtless, (for it never spoke any thing else,) the\nsentiments of the then administration.\n\n\u201cThe south denies that Congress has any jurisdiction over the subject\nof slavery, and contends that the _people of the territories alone_,\nwhen they frame a constitution, preparatory to admission into the\nUnion, _have a right to speak and be heard on that matter_. This fact\nbeing settled, _it really seems to us that this exciting question might\nbe speedily adjusted_, if calm counsels prevail. The south contends\nfor her honor, and for the great principles of non-intervention and\nstate equality. _Why, then, cannot all unite, and permit California to\ncome into the Union as soon as she can frame a constitution?_ Then,\naccording to the doctrines which prevail on both sides of Mason\u2019s\nand Dixon\u2019s line, she may constitutionally establish her domestic\ninstitutions on any basis consistent with republican principles. _The\nsouth could lose nothing by adopting this course. On the contrary, she\nwould save all for which she contends._\u201d\n\n\n\n\n                          MR. BADGER\u2019S REPLY.\n\n TO THE EDITORS OF THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER;\n\n A communication in your paper of yesterday, from the Hon. HORACE MANN,\n of the House of Representatives, seems to require a brief notice from\n me.\n\n The honorable gentleman accuses me of having treated him with gross\n injustice in a recent speech, in which I referred to the closing\n paragraph of a speech of his, and made some comments thereupon.\n\n Now, in what consists the injustice? I quoted that paragraph from his\n speech, and he does not deny that it was quoted truly. There is not a\n word or syllable attributed to him, not a word or syllable alleged or\n insinuated to have been spoken by him, except that paragraph, and that\n he admits was spoken and printed by him just as I quoted it. Then, in\n the statement of his language, I have done him no injustice.\n\n In my comments, I gave \u201cin other words,\u201d--in my own words,--what I\n deemed a true interpretation of his; and, as I attributed to him no\n language which he did not use; as every thing to which he objects\n is, and upon the face of my remarks plainly purports to be, merely\n my own commentary upon the single quotation correctly taken from\n the gentleman\u2019s speech, it is very obvious that I have \u201cfabricated\u201d\n nothing. Whether the interpretation given to the honorable gentleman\u2019s\n language be correct or incorrect, a just carrying of it out to its\n true results, or an unfair exaggeration, intelligent men will be able\n to decide from the reading of my speech, which presents together both\n the text and the commentary, and to them I am willing to leave it.\n\n But the gentleman says that in his speech he \u201cdiscussed the question\n of extending slavery over our territories,\u201d and that \u201cno more slave\n territories and no more slave states was the exact ground\u201d he took.\n And what has that to do with the matter of his complaint against me?\n I referred not to his discussion, or the grounds taken in it. I was\n not considering the course or validity of his reasoning, but the\n conclusion at which he arrived. That was set down in his speech in\n these words:--\n\n \u201cIn conclusion, I have only to add, that such is my solemn and abiding\n conviction of the character of slavery, that, under a full sense of my\n responsibility to my country and my God, I deliberately say, better\n disunion,--better a civil or a servile war,--better any thing that\n God in his providence shall send, than _an extension of the bounds of\n slavery_.\u201d\n\nHere is no reference to any particular degree, kind, or manner\nof extending slavery. He speaks not of the \u201cproposed or desired\nextension,\u201d of \u201cextension into our territories,\u201d or even of \u201c_the_\nextension,\u201d but he speaks of \u201can extension of the bounds of slavery,\u201d\nwithout a reference to any thing in the speech or elsewhere by which\nthe generality of his language might be modified or explained. To\nrefer, therefore, to the speech in order to understand the import of\nthis general conclusion, is idle. If the reasoning in the speech be\nparticular, and the deduction general, there would be the logical\ndefect of a conclusion too large for the premises, but the _meanings_\nof the conclusion would remain, and the want of reasoning to support it\nwould not abate aught of its unmitigated and sweeping generality.\n\nIt is evident, then, that, whether supported by any reasoning,\nparticular or general, the gentleman\u2019s conclusion remains, that\ndisunion, civil war, servile war, with certain undefined judgments\nof Heaven besides, are preferable to \u201can extension of the bounds of\nslavery;\u201d but the indefinite article \u201can\u201d is here exactly equivalent\nto \u201cany,\u201d and therefore whatever amounts to \u201cany extension,\u201d however\nsmall,--a square mile, or acre, or foot,--is strictly within the\nmeaning of the language which he has thought proper deliberately to\nretain in his printed speech.\n\nBut I accept willingly the explanation now given of his meaning, and\nonly regret that, when writing out his speech, he did not then give the\nexplanation which converts his general into a particular proposition.\nBy this explanation I learn that, in his conclusion, he meant to speak\nnot of any extension, however small, but of an extension of slavery in\nour territories.\n\nThen the gentleman\u2019s conclusion, as modified by himself, will be thus:\n\u201cBetter disunion,\u201d [the dissolution of our government and destruction\nof the Union formed by our fathers;] \u201cbetter a civil or a servile war,\u201d\n[the most disastrous, ferocious, and cruel of all wars;] \u201cbetter any\nthing that God in his providence shall send,\u201d [for example, pestilence\nand famine;] \u201cthan an extension of the bounds of slavery\u201d over our\nterritories!\n\nI cheerfully submit to all \u201cintelligent men,\u201d if they are at the same\ntime humane and patriotic, to pass upon such a sentiment. To his own\nintelligent, patriotic, and humane constituents, I submit it, with\nentire confidence that it will not meet their approval; but, on the\ncontrary, that they will regard the honorable gentleman as having been\nbetrayed by the pervading excitement on the slavery question, into an\nextravagant,--I will not say fanatical,--declaration, which he is not\nable to defend, or willing, as yet, to retract or qualify.\n\nI had believed that the honorable gentleman had, under the exciting\ninfluence of discussion, unconsciously done injustice to my own state,\nbut a remark added to his communication would perhaps justify me, if\ninclined to judge unkindly, in supposing that the wrong was wilful. But\nI am not so inclined, and draw no such conclusion. I infer, rather,\nthat the bewildering excitement under which the speech was made has\nnot yet passed away, but still continues to influence unfavorably the\notherwise clear understanding and fair and upright purposes of the\nhonorable gentleman.\n\n                                                         GEO. E. BADGER.\n\n                                             WASHINGTON, March 30, 1850.\n\n\n                         MR. MANN\u2019S REJOINDER.\n\n MESSRS. EDITORS; Your paper of this morning contains a communication\n from the Hon. Mr. BADGER, in reply to mine of the 29th ultimo. I ask\n your indulgence while I briefly answer him.\n\n My complaint was, that he had taken half a dozen lines from my speech,\n and had attributed a meaning to them, in some respects odious, in\n other respects ridiculous, and in all respects unwarrantable. By\n his own admission, too, he had done this without reading the speech\n itself; when, had he accorded to me the justice of hearing me before\n he condemned me, he would have found that both subject-matter and\n context confuted his interpretation.\n\n His first reply is, that he did not \u201cattribute\u201d to me \u201ca word\u201d nor \u201ca\n syllable\u201d which I did not use; and, repeating himself, he adds, that\n he did not \u201callege\u201d or \u201cinsinuate\u201d a \u201cword\u201d nor \u201ca syllable\u201d that I\n now deny. In view of this he asks, with an air of triumph, \u201cIn what\n consists the injustice?\u201d\n\n I answer, as before; the injustice consists in giving a false\n meaning to true \u201cwords\u201d and \u201csyllables,\u201d--a meaning which both the\n subject-matter and context of my speech repudiate. I do not see that\n it is less unjustifiable to attach false meanings to words correctly\n quoted, than to forge quotations. Surely, the honorable senator is too\n good a lawyer to be ignorant of the maxim, \u201c_qui h\u00e6ret in litera_\u201d\n &c.; and too good a theologian not to have read that \u201cthe letter\n killeth\u201d if divorced from the spirit. When Beaumont and Fletcher were\n closeted together to devise the plan of one of their joint plays, in\n which a king was to be killed, they were severally overheard to say,\n \u201cI will kill the king,\u201d and \u201cI will kill the king;\u201d whereupon they\n were arrested, transported to London, and arraigned for conspiring the\n death of the reigning sovereign. Suppose them to have been convicted\n of treason and gibbeted; could not the perjured informer, with a\n charming and childlike simplicity, have used the exact language\n of Mr. BADGER, and said, I testified to the exact \u201c_words_\u201d and\n \u201c_syllables_.\u201d \u201cIn what consists the injustice?\u201d\n\n But the honorable senator goes on to say, that he had no concern\n with my _speech_, but only with my _conclusion_. His language is, \u201cI\n was not considering the course or validity of his reasoning, but the\n conclusion at which he arrived.\u201d He then repeats the quotation, and\n adds, \u201cTo refer, therefore, to the speech in order to understand the\n import of this conclusion, is idle.\u201d\n\n With all deference to the senator,--and mine is unfeignedly great,--I\n submit that this is false logic and worse ethics. As well may one\n declare the judgment of a court to be legal or illegal, merciful or\n tyrannous, without looking back to the allegations and proofs on which\n it is founded. As well may one affirm or deny the \u201cQ. E. D.\u201d of the\n geometer, without reference to the problem or demonstration to which\n it is subjoined. When a discussion exists respecting \u201c_an extension\n of the bounds of slavery_,\u201d (and these were my words,) and I say that\n I would prefer certain enumerated evils rather than the extension in\n controversy, it surely becomes all-important to know whether that\n extension is to embrace the whole earth and to extend through all\n time, or whether it is only the addition of one atom or granule to\n existing slave territory, or of one respiration, or one heart-beat\n of an existing slave, on territory now free. I affirm, then, that a\n knowledge of the premises _is_ indispensable to a judgment on the\n conclusion.\n\n But he accepts my explanation, and then appeals from me to what he\n is pleased to call, (and I thank him for the justice that prompted\n the well-deserved compliment,) my \u201cintelligent, patriotic, and\n humane constituents,\u201d--\u201cwith entire confidence that it will not meet\n their approval.\u201d I gladly join in this appeal. As \u201c_intelligent_\u201d\n men, my constituents foresee that the extension of slavery over our\n territories will not only be an unspeakable crime in itself, but will\n be converted into the means of future unspeakable crimes in further\n extensions. As \u201c_patriotic_\u201d men, they prefer to bear any calamity\n that may come upon themselves, rather than to devolve accumulated\n calamities, growing out of their own dereliction from duty, upon\n their posterity. As \u201c_humane_\u201d men, they would deprecate and forefend\n that greatest of inhumanities, the dooming of increased thousands and\n millions of their fellow-men to the dreadful inheritance of bondage.\n And as religious men,--as men who \u201ctremble when they reflect that\n God is just, and that his justice will not sleep forever,\u201d--they\n mean to use all constitutional means to arrest the slave-creating\n and slave-extending policy of this government, let the two or three\n hundred thousand slaveholders among our twenty millions of people do\n what they will.\n\n That the bearings of the subject may be rightly understood, it should\n be remembered that my speech was made on the 15th of February,\n after ten weeks of threatened disunion on certain specified and\n not improbable contingencies. \u201cMy conclusion,\u201d therefore, was not\n _aggressive_, but _submissive_. I only declared which branch of their\n proffered alternative I should prefer.\n\n The closing paragraph of the respected senator\u2019s communication alludes\n to the _motives_ of those wide and painful differences which are\n made between the whites and the slaves in the _criminal_ legislation\n of the Southern States. Nothing could be more edifying, as to the\n demoralizing nature of slavery and its effects upon men, who, like\n the senator, are otherwise honorable and generous, than a comparison\n of the two codes of law and the two systems of jurisprudence which\n the rulers have respectively established for themselves and for their\n bondmen. The laws or customs known to civilized men and to barbarians\n are not more diverse. It would be rash and reckless in me to encounter\n the distinguished senator on any other subject; but on this I would\n say, as was said by a knight in an old tournament, that he had such\n confidence in the justness of his cause that he would give his\n adversary the advantage of sun and wind.\n\n                                                            HORACE MANN.\n\n WASHINGTON, April 1, 1850.\n\n\n\n\n                                LETTERS\n\n ON THE EXTENSION OF SLAVERY INTO CALIFORNIA AND NEW MEXICO; AND ON THE\n DUTY OF CONGRESS TO PROVIDE THE TRIAL BY JURY FOR ALLEGED FUGITIVE\n SLAVES.\n\n\nHON. HORACE MANN;\n\nDear Sir,--Having learned that you are spending a few days at home,\nand approving the course you have pursued in Congress, in maintaining\nso ably the sentiments and convictions which we maintain and cherish\non the great national questions of the day, we respectfully request\nyou, before returning to Washington, to give your constituents an\nopportunity of hearing somewhat more at length than the hour rule would\nallow, your views and opinions upon the question of the immediate\nadmission of California, and other questions now before Congress,\narising out of the acquisition of territory by the treaty with Mexico.\n\nShould you comply with our request, please name some day which will be\nconvenient for you, that we may give seasonable notice through your\ndistrict.\n\n  _Dedham._\n\n  JAMES RICHARDSON,\n  I. CLEVELAND,\n  JOHN GARDNER.\n\n  _Roxbury._\n\n  DAVID A. SIMMONS,\n  G. R. RUSSELL,\n  JOSEPH H. BILLINGS,\n  L. M. SARGENT,\n  JOHN J. CLARKE,\n  JOS. N. BREWER,\n  WM. A. CRAFTS,\n  WM. CAPEN,\n  FRANCIS HILLIARD,\n  DANIEL JACKSON,\n  J. B. KETTELL.\n\n  _Brookline._\n\n  CHARLES WILD,\n  MARSHALL STEARNS,\n  WM. DEARBORN,\n  G. GRIGGS,\n  DAVID WILDER, Jr.,\n  G. F. HOMER.\n\n  _Dorchester._\n\n  E. SHARPE,\n  N. F. SAFFORD,\n  J. G. NAZRO.\n\n  _Brighton_, J. BRECK.\n  _Foxboro\u2019_, A. HODGES.\n  _Walpole_, A. BIGELOW.\n  _Randolph_, J. WALES.\n  _Quincy_, L. RICHARDS.\n  _Franklin_, L. HARDING.\n  _Stoughton_, J. SMITH.\n  _Milton_, J. REED.\n  _Cohasset_, GEO. BEAL.\n\n  _Newton._\n\n  E. C. DYER,\n  R. E. PATTERSON,\n  W. S. WHITWELL.\n\n  _Hingham._\n\n  C. W. CUSHING.\n\nApril 23d, 1850.\n\n\n\n\n                               LETTER I.\n\n\n                                               WEST NEWTON, May 3, 1850.\n\n To the Hon. James Richardson, I. Cleveland, and John Gardner, of\n Dedham; Hon. D. A. Simmons, John J. Clarke, Francis Hilliard, and\n George R. Russell, of Roxbury, &c., &c.\n\n  GENTLEMEN;\n\nHaving been called home on account of sickness in my family, I have\njust received, at this place, your kind invitation to meet and address\nmy constituents of the 8th Congressional District, and to give them my\n\u201c_views and opinions upon the question of the immediate admission of\nCalifornia, and other questions now before Congress, arising out of the\nacquisition of territory by the treaty with Mexico_.\u201d\n\nA request from so high a source has almost the force of a command. Yet\nI dare not promise to comply. I am liable at any moment to be recalled,\nand, instead of speaking here, to vote there, upon the questions to\nwhich you refer. I might be summoned to return on the day appointed for\nus to meet. The only alternative, therefore, which is left me, is to\naddress you by letter. This I will do, if I can find time. I shall thus\ncomply with your request, in substance, if not in form.\n\nOn many accounts, I have the extremest reluctance to appear before the\npublic on the present occasion. My views, on some vital questions,\ndiffer most materially from those of gentlemen for whom I have\nfelt the profoundest respect; and for some of whom I cherish the\nstrongest personal attachment. But I feel, on the other hand, that\nmy constituents, having intrusted to me some of their most precious\ninterests, are entitled to know my \u201cviews and opinions\u201d respecting the\nhopes and the dangers that encompass them. I shall not, therefore, take\nthe responsibility of declining.\n\nI will premise further, that my relations to political parties, for\nmany years past, have left me as free from all partisan bias \u201cas\nthe lot of humanity will admit.\u201d For twelve years I held an office\nwhose duties required me to abstain from all active co\u00f6peration in\npolitical conflicts; and that duty was so religiously fulfilled, that,\nto my knowledge, I was never charged with its violation. During the\nPresidential contest of 1848, those obligations of neutrality still\nrested upon me. For a year afterwards, I was not called upon to do\nany official act displeasing to any party amongst us. This interval\nI employed in forming the best opinion I could of public men and\nmeasures, and their influence upon the moral and industrial interests\nof the country. I had long entertained most decided convictions in\nfavor of protecting American labor, in favor of cheap postage, and of\nsecurity to the lives and property of our fellow-citizens engaged in\ncommerce. But a new question had arisen,--the great question of freedom\nor slavery in our recently acquired territories,--and this question I\ndeemed, for the time being, to be, though not exclusive of others, yet\nparamount to them. Or rather, I saw that nothing could be so favorable\nto all the last-named interests, as the proper adjustment of the first.\nHe who would provide for the welfare of mankind, must first provide for\ntheir liberty.\n\nSympathizing, then, on different points with different parties, but\nexclusively bound to none, I stood, in reference to the great question\nof territorial freedom or slavery, in the position of the _true_ mother\nin the litigation before Solomon, preferring that the object of my love\nshould be spared in the hands of any one, rather than perish in my own.\n\nOur present difficulties, which, as you well know, have arrested the\ngaze of the nation, and almost suspended the legislative functions\nof Congress, pertain to the destiny of freedom or of slavery, to\nwhich our new territories are to be devoted. After the acquisition of\nLouisiana, and Florida, and Texas, for the aggrandizement and security\nof the Slave-power; after the aboriginal occupants of the soil of the\nSouthern States have been slaughtered, or driven from their homes, at\nan expense of not less than a hundred millions of dollars, and at the\ninfinite expense of our national reputation for justice and humanity;\nand after the area of the slave states has been made almost double that\nof the free states, while the population of the free is about double\nthat of the slave; the reasons seem so strong that they can hardly be\nmade stronger, why the career of our government, as a slavery-extending\npower, should be arrested. On the other hand, the oligarchy who\nrule the south, seeing that, notwithstanding their rich and almost\nillimitable domain, they are rapidly falling behind the north in all\nthe distinctive elements of civilization and well being,--industry,\ntemperance, education, wealth,--not only defend the Upas that blasts\ntheir soil, as though it were the tree of life, but seek to transplant\nit to other lands. With but about three slaves to a square mile,--three\nmillions of slaves to nearly a million of square miles,--they say they\nare too crowded; that they feel a sense of suffocation, and must have\nmore room, when all their weakness and pain proceed, not from the\nlimited quantity, but from the malignant quality of the atmosphere they\nbreathe. Hence the war with Mexico, commenced and prosecuted to add\nslave territory and slave states to the southern section. Hence the\nrefusal to accept propositions of peace, unless territory _south_ of\nlatitude 36\u00b0 30\u00b4, (the Missouri compromise line, so called,) should be\nceded to us. Hence, when the Mexican negotiators proposed to insert a\nprohibition of slavery in the treaty of cession, and declared that the\ninquisition would not be more odious to the American people than the\nreinstitution of slavery to them, our minister, Mr. Trist, told them\nhe would not consent to such a prohibition though they would cover the\nsoil a foot deep with gold. And hence, also, the determination of a\nportion of the southern members of Congress to stop the whole machinery\nof the government, to sacrifice all the great interests of the country,\nand assail even the Union itself, unless slavery shall be permitted\nto cross the Rio Grande and enter the vast regions of the west, as it\nheretofore, in its aggressive march, crossed the Mississippi and the\nSabine.\n\nEven in 1846, when the war against Mexico was declared, all men of\nsagacity foresaw the present conflict. Could that question have been\ndecided on its merits, or could the institutions to be planted upon\nthe territory we might acquire have been determined by the unbiased\nsuffrages of the American people, no war would have been declared,\nand no territory acquired. But the great political leaders of the\nsouth expected to make up both for their numerical weakness and for\nthe injustice of their cause, by connecting the question of slavery\nextension with that of future presidential elections and with the\nstrife of parties. They promised themselves that they could draw over\nleading northern men to their support, by offering them the Tantalus\ncup of presidential honors; and then, by the force of party cohesion\nand discipline, insure the support of the vast descending scale of\noffice expectants. Early in the present session of Congress, it was\ndistinctly declared from a high southern source, that the south must\ndo most for those northern men who would do most for them. A few words\nwill make it apparent how faithfully this plan has been adhered to, and\nhow successful it may become.\n\nNo northern Democrat, opposed to slavery extension, could expect\nthe support of the southern democracy. Hence, General Cass stepped\npromptly forward, and declared, in his Nicholson letter, that Congress\nhad no power to exclude slavery from the territories. This has been\ntechnically called his \u201cbid,\u201d or his \u201cfirst bid.\u201d It was deemed\nsatisfactory by the south; for, according to their philosophy, the\nrelation of master and slave is the natural or normal relation of\nmankind; and therefore, where no prohibition of it exists, slavery\nflows into free territory as water runs down hill. This avowal of\nGeneral Cass was rendered more signal and valuable to the south,\nbecause, for the greater part of his political life, he had taken\noaths, held offices, and administered laws, in undeniable contradiction\nto the declaration then made. The ordinance of 1787 was expressly\nrecognized by the first Congress held under the constitution, [see\nch. 8.] It was modified in part, and confirmed as to the rest; and in\nholding offices under this, General Cass had laid the foundation of\nhis honors and his fortune. His declaration, therefore, against all\ninterdiction of slavery, made under circumstances so extraordinary\nand in contradiction to the whole tenor of his past life, was hailed\nwith acclamation by the south, and he was unanimously declared, at\nBaltimore, to be the accepted candidate of the democracy, for the\noffice of President. The common notion is, that a man shows his love\nfor a cause by the amount of sacrifice he will make for it; and as\nconsistency, honor, and truth, are the most precious elements in\ncharacter, he showed his devotion to the south by sacrificing them all.\n\nTo the honor of the Whig party be it said, there was not a northern man\nto be found, who, to gain the support of the south, would espouse its\npro-slavery doctrines, or invent any new reading of the constitution to\ngive them a semblance of law. Hence, at the Philadelphia Convention,\nno northern Whig received even so much as a complimentary vote. The\njudicial eminence of Judge McLean, the military eminence of General\nScott, were passed contemptuously by; and Mr. Webster, acknowledged to\nbe the greatest statesman of the age, received but fourteen votes out\nof almost three hundred; and twelve of these were from Massachusetts.\nMr. Webster had spoken more eloquent words for liberty than any other\nliving man, and this distinguished neglect was doubtless intended to\nteach him the lesson, that the path to presidential honors did not lie\nthrough an advocacy of the rights of man. General Taylor was nominated\nand chosen. He was understood to take neutral ground. Discountenancing\nthe veto power, if the House of Representatives, who are chosen\ndirectly from and by the people, and the Senate, who are chosen by\nthe states, will pass a territorial bill, either with or without a\nprohibition of slavery, he will approve it. This is the common opinion,\nand I have no doubt of its correctness.\n\nUnder these circumstances, a most desperate effort was made at the\nclose of the last Congress to provide a government for the territories\nwith no prohibition of slavery. Had General Cass been elected, no\nsuch effort would have been necessary, for he was pledged to veto a\nprohibition. General Taylor was supposed to be pledged to an opposite\ncourse; and hence the struggle. The facts must be so fresh in the\nrecollection of all, that they hardly need to be recounted. The\nHouse performed its duty to the country and to freedom, by sending\nterritorial bills to the Senate containing the prohibitory clause.\nThe Senate, equalling the northern by its southern votes, and far\noutnumbering the Whigs by its Democrats, left those bills to sleep the\nsleep of death upon its table. But during the closing hours of the\nsession, it foisted a provision for the government of the territories\ninto the general appropriation bill; and held out the menace that this\nbill should not pass at all, unless the territorial clause should\npass with it. The flagitiousness of this proceeding it is difficult to\ncomprehend and impossible to describe. The appropriation bill is one on\nwhich the working, and even the continuance of the government, depend.\nWithout it, the machinery of the state must cease to move. Contracts by\nthe government to pay money must be violated. Officers cannot obtain\ntheir salaries. Families must be left without subsistence. If long\ncontinued, all judges would resign, and courts be broken up; and when\njustice should cease to be administered, violence, robbery, and every\nform of crime would run riot through the land.\n\nBesides, an appropriation bill and a bill for the government of\nterritories have no congruity with each other. They are not relevant.\nNeither is germane to the other. Every one knows it to be a common\nparliamentary rule that when a proposition is submitted which is\nsusceptible of a division, any _one_ member has a right to demand\nit. All bills, too, for raising revenue, must, by the constitution,\noriginate in the House; and the House has as much right to interfere\nto prevent the Senate from ratifying a treaty, as the Senate has to\nobstruct the passage of a revenue bill by adding to it extraneous\nprovisions. It was this effort on the part of the Senate to incorporate\ninto the appropriation bill a provision most unrighteous in itself\nand most odious to the free sentiments of the north, which led to the\nprotracted session on the night of the 3d of March, 1849. The course of\nthe pro-slavery leaders, on that occasion, resembled that of a madman\nwho should seize a torch and stand over the magazine of a ship, and\nproclaim that he would send men and vessel to destruction, unless they\nwould steer for his port. A portion of the House confederated with\nthe majority of the Senate in this unprincipled machination; but the\nlarger number stood undaunted, and after perils, such as so precious\nan interest never before encountered, the pro-slavery amendment was\nstricken out, and its champions were foiled. Through that memorable\nnight the friends of freedom wrestled like Jacob with the angel of God,\nand though the session did not close until the sun of a Sabbath morning\nshone full into the windows of the capitol, yet a holier work never was\ndone on that holy day.\n\nIt was with a joy such as no words can ever express, that I saw the\nterritories rescued from the clutch of slavery by the expiration of\nthe Thirtieth Congress. I felt confident that when the Thirty-first\nCongress should assemble, it would be under better auspices, and with a\nstronger phalanx on the side of freedom. In regard to California, those\nhopes have been fulfilled; but I proceed to state how they have been\nnearly extinguished in regard to the residue of the territory.\n\nOur first disaster was the election of a most adroit, talented, and\nzealous pro-slavery speaker. A better organ for the accomplishment of\ntheir purposes the friends of slavery could not have found; nor the\nfriends of freedom a more formidable opponent. Whilst the pro-slavery\nchampions of the south, almost without distinction of party, exulted\nover this triumph, it has been the occasion of most lamentable\ncriminations and recriminations at the north. Southern men abandon all\ndistinctions of Whig or Democrat for the cause of slavery. Would to God\nwe could do as much for the cause of freedom.\n\nThe choice of a pro-slavery speaker was immediately followed by the\nappointment of most ultra pro-slavery committees. Some Free-Soil\nmembers, it is true, were placed upon these committees; but in this,\nthe speaker only carried out more fully his own purposes and those of\nhis party, by putting, what they considered as insane men, into close\ncustody, instead of letting them run at large. He showed, however,\neither a want of courage in himself, or of confidence in his chosen\nguards; for, on the District of Columbia committee he detailed a\nfile of five, on the judiciary committee a file of four, and on the\nterritorial committee a file of six strong pro-slavery men, for the\nsafe keeping of one Free-Soiler.\n\nWithin an hour after the House was organized, Mr. Root, of Ohio,\nsubmitted a resolution, instructing the committee on territories\nto report territorial bills prohibiting slavery. Many true friends\nto freedom believed this movement to be ill timed and unfortunate;\nand though the House then refused, by a handsome vote, to lay the\nresolution on the table, yet when it came up for consideration again,\nthe first decision was reversed by about the same majority. There is\nabundant proof that the latter vote did not express the true sentiment\nof the House. Not a few voted against the resolution avowedly because\nof its paternity,--thus spiting a noble son on account of its obnoxious\nfather. Others repented of their votes as soon as they came to reflect\nthat the record would go where their explanation could not accompany it.\n\nBut unfortunately it was too late. There stands the record, to survive\nthrough all time and to be read of all men. The champions of slavery\nseized upon this vote as a propitious omen. They derided and scouted\nthe proviso with a fierceness unknown before. They shouted their\nthreats of disunion with a more defiant tone, should any attempt at\nwhat they called its resurrection, be made. A speech was delivered by\nMr. Clingman, of North Carolina, in which a massacre of a majority of\nthe House was distinctly shadowed forth, so that not \u201ca quorum should\nbe left to do business.\u201d The effect of that vote was almost as bad as\nthough it meant what it said.\n\nAt a later day, when a bill for the admission of California was\npresented, the tactics of delay were resorted to, and midnight found\nus calling the yeas and nays, for more than the thirtieth time, on\nquestions whose frivolousness and vexatiousness cannot be indicated by\nnumbers.\n\nThe proceedings in the Senate, however, are those which now\nthreaten the most disastrous consequences. Early in the session, in\norder to bring his northern friends up to the doctrine that it is\nunconstitutional to legislate against slavery in the territories,\nGeneral Cass made a speech, in which he denies that Congress has _any_\npower, under _any_ circumstances, to pass _any_ law respecting their\ninhabitants. According to that speech, the United States stands in the\nrelation of a foreign government to the people of its own territories;\nand if they set up a king or establish a religion, we cannot help it;\nfor we have no more power or right to control them than we have the\nsubjects of Great Britain or the citizens of France. It has been said\nthat the doctrine of General Cass and that of General Taylor, on this\nsubject, are identical; but there is this all-important difference\nbetween them:--General Taylor maintains the right of Congress to\nlegislate for the territories, and will doubtless approve any bill\nfor the prohibition of slavery in them; but General Cass, denying\nthis right in Congress, would, if President, veto such a bill. He,\ntherefore, would leave the territories open to be invaded and possessed\nby slavery; and in southern law and practice possession is more than\nnine points.\n\nNext came Mr. Clay\u2019s compromise resolutions, so called. By these,\nCalifornia was to be admitted as a state; the territories organized\nwithout any restriction upon slavery; the south-western boundary of\nTexas to be extended to the Rio Grande; a part of her ten or twelve\nmillion debt to be paid by the United States, on condition of her\nabandoning her claim to a part of New Mexico lying east of the Rio\nGrande; the abolition of the slave trade in the District of Columbia,\nand the inviolability of slavery in the District daring the good\npleasure of Maryland and of the inhabitants of the District; more\neffectual provision for the restitution of fugitive slaves, and free\ntraffic in slaves forever between the states, unless forbidden by\nthemselves.\n\nA compromise is a settlement of difficulties by mutual concessions.\nLet us examine the mutuality of the concessions which Mr. Clay\u2019s\nresolutions propose.\n\nIn the first place, California is to be permitted to remain free if\nthe territories of New Mexico and Utah may be opened to slavery. But\nCalifornia is free already; free by her own act; free without any\nconcession of theirs, and without any grace but the grace of God. It is\nmainly occupied by a northern population, who do their own work with\ntheir own hands, or their own brains. Fifty hardy gold diggers from\nthe north will never stand all day knee deep in water, shovel earth,\nrock washers, &c., under a broiling sun, and see a man with his fifty\nslaves standing under the shade of a tree, or having an umbrella held\nover his head, with whip in hand, and without wetting his dainty glove,\nor soiling his japanned boot, pocket as much at night as the whole of\nthem together. Or, rather, they will never suffer institutions to exist\nwhich tolerate such unrighteousness. California, therefore, is free; as\nfree as Massachusetts; and Mr. Clay might as well have said in terms,\nthat whereas Massachusetts is free, therefore New Mexico and Utah shall\nbe slave, or run the hazard of being so.\n\nThe next point of Mr. Clay\u2019s compromise is, that Texas shall extend\nher south-western boundary from or near the Nueces to the Rio Grande,\nand shall receive, probably, some six or eight millions of dollars for\nwithdrawing her claim to that part of New Mexico which lies east of the\nlast-named river. Now, Texas has no rightful or plausible claim to a\nfoot of all this territory. But suppose it to be a subject of doubt,\nand therefore of compromise. The mutuality, then, consists in dividing\nthe whole territory claimed by Texas, and then giving her a valid title\nto one portion of it, and paying her for all the rest. Texas, or,--what\nin this connection is the same thing,--slavery surrenders absolutely\nnothing, gets a good title to some seventy thousand square miles of\nterritory, and pay for as much more!\n\nBut what renders it almost incredible that any man could soberly submit\nsuch a proposition and dare to call it a compromise, is this: All that\npart of New Mexico which Texas claims, and which lies between the\nparallels of 36\u00b0 30\u00b4 and 42\u00b0, is, by the resolutions of annexation,\nto be forever free. I shall consider the constitutionality of these\nresolutions by and by; I now treat them as valid. Now the compromise\nproposes to buy this territory, so secured to freedom, and annex it to\nNew Mexico, which is to be left open to slavery. We are to peril all\nthe broad region between 36\u00b0 30\u00b4 and 42\u00b0, and pay Texas some six or\neight millions of dollars for the privilege of doing so! Mr. Clay is\nnot less eminent for his statesmanship than for his waggery. Were he\nto succeed in playing off this practical joke upon the north, and were\nit not for the horrible consequences which it would involve, a roar of\nlaughter, like a _feu de joie_, would run down the course of the ages.\nAs it is, the laughter will be \u201celsewhere.\u201d\n\nThe next point pertains to the abolition of the slave trade, and the\nperpetuity of slavery, in the District of Columbia. This District\nhas an area of about fifty square miles; and Mr. Clay proposes, in\nconsideration of transferring its slave marts to Alexandria, on the\nVirginia side, or to some convenient place in Montgomery or Prince\nGeorge\u2019s county, on the Maryland side, to divest Congress forever of\nits right of \u201cexclusive legislation\u201d over it. Should this plan prevail,\nthe perpetuity of slavery in the District will be defended by more\nunassailable and impregnable barriers than any other institution in\nChristendom. The President has a veto upon Congress; but two thirds\nof both Houses may still pass any law, notwithstanding his dissent.\nMr. Clay proposes to give, both to Maryland and to the citizens of the\nDistrict, a veto on this subject;--an absolute veto, not a qualified\none, like that of the President of the United States, but one that\nwill control, not majorities merely, but an absolute unanimity in\nboth branches of Congress. By his plan, therefore, three separate,\nindependent powers are to have a veto upon the abolition of slavery in\nthe District of Columbia. And not only so, but while it will require\ntheir _joint_ or _concurrent_ action to abolish the institution, any\none of them can preserve it. The laws of the Medes and Persians had no\nsuch guaranties for perpetuity as this.\n\nMr. Clay\u2019s last point is really too facetious. So solemn a subject does\nnot permit such long-continued levity, however it may be masked by\nsobriety of countenance. It is, that Congress shall make more effectual\nprovision for the capture and delivery of fugitive slaves; and, as\nan equivalent for this, it shall bind itself never to interfere with\nthe inter-state traffic in slaves. We are to catch the slaves of the\nSouth, and, as though this were a grateful privilege to us, we are to\nallow them free commerce in slaves, coastwise or inland. By this means,\nslaves can be transported to the mouth of the Rio Grande, and some\nhundreds of miles up that river, towards New Mexico, instead of being\ndriven in coffles across the country. The compromise is, that for every\nslave we catch, we are to facilitate the passage of a hundred into New\nMexico.\n\nSuch is the mutuality of Mr. Clay\u2019s compromises. They are such\ncompromises as the wolf offers to the lamb, or the vulture to the dove.\nThey make the rightful admission of California into the Union, with\nher free constitution, contingent upon opening the new territories\nto slavery; they ratify one part of the predatory claim of Texas,\nand propose to give her millions for the other part; they give an\nunconditional veto to the state of Maryland and to the citizens of the\nDistrict of Columbia, over a unanimous vote of both Houses of Congress,\neven when approved by the President; in connection with Mr. Butler\u2019s\nbill and Mr. Mason\u2019s amendments, they expose our white citizens to\ngrievous penalties and imprisonments for not doing what the Supreme\nCourt of the United States has decided we are not bound to do, in\nrelation to fugitive slaves, and they offer our colored citizens to be\nkidnapped and spirited away into bondage; and they foreclose, in favor\nof the south, the disputed question of the inter-state commerce in\nslaves. In one particular only do they appear to concede any thing to\nnorthern rights, or northern convictions, or northern feelings. They\npropose to transfer the District of Columbia slave trade across an\nideal line into Virginia or into Maryland, so that the slave planter\nor slave trader, when he comes to our American Congo to replenish his\nstock of human cattle, shall be obliged to go a mile or two, to the\nslave marts, instead of walking down Pennsylvania Avenue. I deem this\nto be no concession. If it is honorable to produce corn and cotton,\nit is honorable to buy and sell them,--and if it is honorable to hold\nbeings created in God\u2019s image in slavery, it is honorable to stand\nbetween the producer and consumer, and to make merchandise of the\nbodies and the souls of men. Let this Light of the Age be set upon a\nhill, that all nations may behold it.\n\nI will refer to Mr. Bell\u2019s resolutions no further than to say, that\nthey propose the formation of three slave states out of what is now\nclaimed by Texas, one of which is to be admitted into the Union\nforthwith as an offset to California.\n\nMr. Buchanan has not regarded the movements of his rival, General Cass,\nwith indifference. He has spent a considerable portion of the winter\nin Washington, and it is understood that he holds out the Missouri\ncompromise line, from the western boundary of Missouri to the Pacific\nOcean, as his lure to the south, for their favorable regards in the\nensuing presidential contest.\n\nIn a chronological order, I must now consider some vitally important\nviews, which have been submitted by some members in the House, and by\nMr. Webster and others in the Senate. In mentioning the name of this\ngreat statesman, and in avowing that I am one among the many whom his\nrecently expressed opinions have failed to convince, it is due to\nmyself, however indifferent it may be to him or to his friends, that I\nshould express my admiration of his powers, my gratitude for his past\nservices, and the diffidence with which I dissented, at first, from\nhis views. But I have pondered upon them long, and the longer I have\npondered the more questionable they appear. I shall therefore venture\nupon the perilous task of inquiring into their correctness; and while I\ndo it with the deference and respect which belong to his character, I\nshall do it also with that fidelity to conscience and to judgment that\nbelong to mine. He is great, but truth is greater than us all.\n\nI shall confine myself mainly, and perhaps wholly, to Mr. Webster\u2019s\nviews, because he has argued the cause of the south with vastly more\nability than it has been argued by any one among themselves. If his\nconclusions, then, be not tenable, their case is lost.[9]\n\nMr. Webster casts away the \u201cProviso\u201d altogether. He says, \u201c_If a\nresolution or a law were now before us to provide a territorial\ngovernment for New Mexico, I would not vote to put any prohibition into\nit whatever_.\u201d (p. 44.) The reason given is, that slavery is already\nexcluded from \u201cCalifornia and New Mexico\u201d \u201cby the law of nature, of\nphysical geography, the law of the formation of the earth.\u201d (p. 42.)\n\u201cCalifornia and New Mexico are Asiatic in their formation and scenery.\nThey are composed of vast ridges of mountains of enormous height, with\nbroken ridges and deep valleys.\u201d (p. 43.)\n\nNow, this is drawing moral conclusions from physical premises. It is\narguing from physics to metaphysics. It is determining the law of\nthe spirit by geographical phenomena. It is undertaking to settle\nby mountains and rivers, and not by the Ten Commandments, a great\nquestion of human duty. It abandons the second commandment of Christ\nand all bills of rights enacted in conformity thereto, and leaves our\nobligations to our \u201cneighbor\u201d to be determined by the accidents of\nearth and water and air. To ascertain whether a people will obey the\nDivine command, and do to others as they would be done by, it looks at\nthe thermometer. What a problem would this be: \u201cRequired the height\nabove the level of the sea at which the oppressor \u2018will undo the heavy\nburdens and let the oppressed go free, and break every yoke,\u2019--to be\ndetermined barometrically.\u201d Alas! this cannot be done. Slavery depends,\nnot upon climate, but upon conscience. Wherever the wicked passions of\nthe human heart can go, there slavery can go. Slavery is an effect.\nAvarice, sloth, pride, and the love of domination, are its cause. In\nascending mountain sides, at what altitude do men leave these passions\nbehind them? Different vegetable growths are to be found at different\nheights, depending also upon the zone. This I can understand. There is\nthe altitude of the palm, the altitude of the oak, the altitude of\nthe pine, and, far above them all, the line of perpetual snow. But, in\nregard to innocence and guilt, where is the _white line_? How high up\ncan a slaveholder go and not lose his free agency? At what elevation\nwill the whip fall from the hand of the master, and the fetter from the\nlimbs of the slave? There is no such point. Freedom and slavery on the\none hand, and climate and geology on the other, are incommensurable\nquantities. We might as well attempt to determine a question in\ntheology by the cube root, or a question in ethics by the black art.\nSlavery, being a crime founded upon human passions, can go wherever\nthose passions are unrestrained. It has existed in Asia from the\nearliest ages, notwithstanding its \u201cformation and scenery.\u201d It labors\nand groans on the flanks of the Ural mountains now. There are to-day\nforty-eight millions of slaves in Russia, not one rood of which comes\ndown so low as the northern boundary of California and New Mexico.\n\nHad Mr. Webster\u2019s philosophy been correct, then California was at\nsuperfluous pains when she incorporated the ordinance of 1787 into\nher constitution. Instead of saying that \u201cslavery and involuntary\nservitude, (except for crime,) shall be forever prohibited,\u201d she should\nhave said, \u201cWhereas, by a law of nature, of physical geography, the law\nof the formation of the earth,\u201d \u201cslavery cannot exist in California,\u201d\ntherefore we will not \u201creaffirm an ordinance of nature, nor reenact the\nwill of God.\u201d\n\nShould it be said that slavery will not go into the new territories,\nbecause it is unprofitable; I ask, Where is it profitable? Where is\nignorance so profitable as knowledge? Where is ungodliness gain, even\nfor the things of this life? How little is the hand worth at one end\nof an arm, if there is not a brain at the other! Do not Maryland,\nVirginia, North Carolina, and other states, furnish witnesses by\nthousands and tens of thousands that slavery impoverishes? Yet with\nwhat enthusiasm they cherish it! Generally, ignorance is a necessary\nconcomitant of slavery. Of white persons, over twenty years of age,\nunable to read and write, there were, according to the last census,\n58,787 in Virginia, 56,609 in North Carolina, 58,513 in Tennessee,\nand so forth. I have a letter before me, received this morning,\ndated in Indiana, in which the writer says, he removed from North\nCarolina in 1802, when he was fourteen years old, and at that time\nhe had never seen a newspaper in his life. Can there be genius, the\ninventive talent, or profitable labor, where ignorance is so dense?\nCan the oppression that tramples out voluntary industry, enterprise,\nintelligence, and the desire of independence, conduce to riches? Yet\nthis is done wherever slavery exists, and is part and parcel of its\nworking. Is any other form of robbery profitable? Yet individuals and\ncommunities have practised it and lived by it, and we may as well rely\nupon a \u201claw of physical geography\u201d to arrest the one as the other. It\nis not poetry, but literal truth, that the breath of the slave blasts\nvegetation, his tears poison the earth, and his groans strike it with\nsterility. It would be easy to show why the master does not abandon\nslavery, even amid the desolation with which it has surrounded him.\nThere is a combination of poverty and pride, which slavery produces,\n_on the doctrine of natural appetence_, and which, therefore, it\nexactly fits. The helplessness of the master in regard to all personal\nwants seems to necessitate the slavery that has begotten it. All moral\nand religious principles are lowered till they conform to the daily\npractice. Custom blinds conscience, until, without any attempt to\nemancipate or ameliorate their victims, men can preach and pray and\nhold slaves, as Hamlet\u2019s grave digger jests and sings while he turns up\nskulls.\n\nBut slavery cannot go into California or New Mexico, because their\nstaple productions are not \u201ctobacco, corn, cotton, or rice.\u201d (p.\n44.) These are agricultural products. But is slave labor confined to\nagriculture? Suppose that predial slavery will not become common in\nthe new territories. Cannot menial? If slaves cannot do field work,\ncannot they do house work? There is an opening for a hundred thousand\nslaves to-day in the new territories, for purposes of domestic labor.\nAnd beyond this, let me ask, who possesses any such geologic vision\nthat, at a distance of a thousand miles, he can penetrate the valleys\nand gorges of New Mexico, and say that gold will not yet be found\nthere as it is in California,--not in sand and gravel only, but in\nforty-eight-pounders and fifty-sixes? This is the very kind of labor\non which slaves, in all time, have been so extensively employed,--the\nvery labor on which a million of slaves in Hispaniola lost their lives,\nwithin a few years after its discovery by Columbus. Gold deposits are\nnow worked within twenty-five miles of Santa Fe. The last account\nwhich I have seen, of a company of emigrants passing from Santa Fe to\nCalifornia by the River Gila, announces rich discoveries of gold upon\nthat river. A fellow-citizen of mine has just returned home, who says\nhe saw a slave sold at the mines in California, in September last. As\nyet, the distant regions of the Gila and the Colorado cannot be worked,\nbecause of the Apaches, the Utahs, and other tribes of Indians. But\nadmit slavery there, and the power of the government will be invoked\nto exterminate these Indians, as it was before to exterminate the\nCherokees and Seminoles,--not to drive them beyond the Mississippi,\nbut beyond the Styx. A few days since a letter was published in the\npapers, dated on board a steamer descending the Mississippi, which\nstated that a considerable number of slaves were on board, bound for\nCalifornia, under an agreement with their masters that they should\nbe free after serving two years at the mines. We know, too, that the\nreason assigned for incorporating a provision in the constitution\nof California, authorizing its legislature to pass laws for the\nexclusion of free blacks from the state, was, that slaves would be\nbrought there under this very form of agreement, and by and by the\ncountry would be overspread by people of color who had bought their\nfreedom. The sagacious men who framed the California constitution\ncame from all parts of the territory, and, being collected on the\nspot, having surveyed all its mountains, having breathed its air at\nall temperatures, and turned up its golden soil,--these men had never\ndiscovered any \u201claw of physical geography\u201d which the fell spirit of\nslavery could not transgress. Slaves were carried into Oregon, ten\ndegrees of latitude higher up. Its colonists re\u00ebnacted the ordinance\nof 1787 before Congress gave them a territorial government. In the\nterritorial government that was given them, the prohibition was\ninserted; and President Polk signed the bill, with an express protest,\nthat he ratified this exclusion of slavery only because the country\nlay north of the Missouri compromise line; but declared that, had it\nembraced the very region in question, he would have vetoed the bill.\n\nGeneral Cass never took the ground that slavery _could not_ exist in\nthe new territories; and no inconsiderable part of the opposition\nmade to him in Massachusetts and in other free states, was placed\nexpressly upon the ground that he would not prohibit it. Mr. Webster,\nin his Marshfield speech, September 1, 1848, opposed the election of\nGeneral Cass, because, through his recreancy to northern principles,\nslavery would invade the territories. This was expressed with his usual\nclearness and force, as follows:--\n\n \u201cHe, [General CASS,] will surely have the Senate; and with the\n patronage of the government, with every interest that he, as a\n northern man, can bring to bear, co\u00f6perating with every interest\n that the south can bring to bear, we cry safety before we are out\n of the woods, _if we feel that there is no danger as to these new\n territories_.\u201d\n\nYet Mr. Webster now says, that to support the \u201cProviso,\u201d would \u201cdo\ndisgrace to his own understanding.\u201d (p. 46.)\n\nDuring the same campaign, also, the Hon. Rufus Choate, one of the most\neloquent men in New England, and known to be the personal friend of Mr.\nWebster, delivered a speech at Salem, in which the following passage\noccurs:--\n\n \u201cIt is the passage of a law to say that California and New Mexico\n shall remain forever free. That is, fellow-citizens, undoubtedly an\n object of great and transcendent importance; for there is none who\n will deny that we should go up to the very limits of the constitution\n itself, and with the wisdom of the wisest, and zeal of the most\n zealous, should unite to accomplish this great object, and to defeat\n the always detested, and forever to be detested object of the dark\n ambition of that candidate of the Baltimore convention, (General\n CASS,) who has ventured to pledge himself in advance that he will veto\n the future law of freedom; and may God avert the madness of all those\n who hate slavery and love freedom, that would unite in putting him\n in the place where his thrice accursed pledge may be redeemed!... Is\n there a Whig upon this floor who doubts that the strength of the Whig\n party next March will insure freedom to California and New Mexico, if\n by the constitution they are entitled to freedom at all? Is there a\n member of Congress that would not vote for freedom? You know there is\n not one. Did not every Whig member of Congress from the free states\n vote at the last session for freedom? You know that every man of them\n returned home covered with the thanks of his constituents for that\n vote. Is there a single Whig constituency, in any free state in this\n country, that would return any man that would not vote for freedom?\n _Do you believe that Daniel Webster himself could be returned if there\n was the least doubt upon the question?_\u201d\n\nMr. Choate then adds: \u201cUpon this question alone, we always differ from\nthose Whigs of the south; and on that one, we _propose simply to vote\nthem down_.\u201d Mr. Webster now says he will not join in voting them down.\n\nUnder such circumstances, is it frivolous or captious to ask for\nsomething more than a dogmatic assertion that slavery cannot impregnate\nthese new regions, and cause them to breed monsters forever? On a\nsubject of such infinite importance I cannot be satisfied with a\ndictum; I want a demonstration. I cannot accept the prophecy without\ninquiring what spirit inspired the prophet. As a revelation from\nHeaven, it would be most delightful; but, as it conflicts with all\nhuman experience, it requires at least one undoubted miracle to attest\nthe divinity of its origin.\n\nAccording to the last census, there were more than eight thousand\npersons of African blood in Massachusetts. Abolish the moral and\nreligious convictions of our people, let slavery appear to be in\ntheir sight not only lawful and creditable, but desirable as a badge\nof aristocratic distinction, and as a \u201cpolitical, social, moral, and\nreligious blessing,\u201d and what obstacle would prevent these eight\nthousand persons from being turned into slaves, on any day, by the\neasy, cheap, and shorthand kidnapping of a legislative act? Africans\ncan exist here, for the best of all reasons,--they do exist here. A\nstate of slavery would not stop their respiration, nor cause them to\nvanish \u201cinto thin air.\u201d Think, for a moment, of the complaints we\nconstantly hear in certain circles, of the difficulty and vexatiousness\nof commanding domestic service. If no moral or religious objection\nexisted against holding slaves, would not many of those respectable\nand opulent gentlemen who signed the letter of thanks to Mr. Webster,\nand hundreds of others indeed, instead of applying to intelligence\noffices, or visiting emigrant ships for \u201cdomestics,\u201d as we call them,\ngo at once to the auction room and buy a man or a woman with as little\nhesitancy or compunction as they now send to Brighton for beeves, or go\nto Tattersall\u2019s for a horse? If the cold of the higher latitudes checks\nthe flow of African blood, or benumbs African limbs, the slaveholder\nknows very well that a trifling extra expense for whips will make up\nfor the difference.\n\nBut suppose a doubt could be reasonably entertained about the invasion\nof the new territories by slavery. Even suppose the chances to\npreponderate against it. What then? Are we to submit a question of\nhuman liberty over vast regions and for an indefinite extent of time,\nto the determination of chance? With all my faculties I say, _No!_ Let\nme ask any man, let me respectfully ask Mr. Webster himself, if it\nwere his own father and mother, and brothers and sisters, and sons and\ndaughters, who were in peril of such a fate, whether he would abandon\nthem to chance,--even to a favorable chance. Would he suffer their\nfate to be determined by dice or divination, when positive prohibition\nwas in his power? And by what rule of Christian morality, or even of\nenlightened heathen morality, can we deal differently with the kindred\nof others from what we would with our own? He is not a Christian whose\nhumanity is bounded by the legal degrees of blood, or by general types\nof feature.\n\nBut Mr. Webster would not \u201ctaunt\u201d the south. Neither would I. I would\nnot taunt any honorable man, much less a criminal. Still, when the\nmost precious interests of humanity are in peril, I would not be\ntimid. I would not stop too long to cull lovers\u2019 phrases. Standing\nunder the eye of God, in the forum of the world and before the august\ntribunal of posterity, when the litigants are freedom and tyranny, and\nhuman happiness and human misery the prize they contest, it should\nhappen to the sworn advocate of liberty, as Quintilian says it did\nto Demosthenes, \u201cnot to speak and to plead, but to thunder and to\nlighten.\u201d Mr. Webster would not taunt the south; and yet I say the\nsouth were never so insulted before as he has insulted them. Common\nscoffs, jeers, vilifications, are flattery and sycophancy compared\nwith the indignities he heaped upon them. Look at the facts. The south\nwaged war with Mexico from one, and only one, motive; for one, and only\none, object,--the extension of slavery. They refused peace unless it\nsurrendered territory. That territory must be south of the abhorred\nline of 36\u00b0 30\u00b4. The same President who abandoned the broad belt of\ncountry on our northern frontier, from 49\u00b0 to 54\u00b0 40\u00b4, to which we had,\nin his own words, \u201can unquestionable title,\u201d would allow no prohibition\nof slavery to be imposed upon the territory which Mexico ceded, though\nshe would bury it a foot deep in gold. The Proviso had been resisted\nin all forms, from the beginning. Southern Whigs voted against the\nratification of the treaty, foreseeing the struggle that was to follow.\nDesperate efforts had been made, at the close of the last session of\nCongress, to smuggle in an unrestricted territorial government, against\nall parliamentary rule and all constitutional implication. The whole\nsouth, as one man, claimed it as a \u201cdescribable, weighable, estimable,\ntangible,\u201d and most valuable \u201cright\u201d to carry slaves there. Calhoun,\nBerrien, Badger, Mason, Davis,--the whole southern phalanx, Whig and\nDemocrat, pleaded for it, argued for it, and most of them declared\nthemselves ready to fight for it; and yet Mr. Webster rises in his\nplace, and tells them they are all moonstruck, hallucinated, fatuous;\nbecause \u201can ordinance of nature and the will of God\u201d had settled this\nquestion against them from the beginning of the world. Mr. Calhoun\nsaid, immediately after this speech, \u201cGive us free scope and time\nenough, and we will take care of the rest.\u201d\n\nMR. MASON said,--\n\n \u201cWe have heard here from various quarters, and from high quarters, and\n repeated on all hands,--repeated here again to-day by the honorable\n senator from Illinois, [Mr. SHIELDS,] that there is a law of nature\n which excludes the southern people from every portion of the state\n of California. I know of no such law of nature,--none whatever; but\n I do know the contrary, that if California had been organized with a\n territorial form of government only, and for which, at the last two\n sessions of Congress, she has obtained the entire southern vote, the\n people of the Southern States would have gone there freely, and have\n taken their slaves there in great numbers. They would have done so,\n because the value of the labor of that class would have been augmented\n to them many hundred fold. Why, in the debates which took place in\n the convention in California which formed the constitution, and which\n any senator can now read for himself, after the provision excluding\n slavery was agreed upon, it was proposed to prohibit the African\n race altogether, free as well as bond. A debate arose upon it, and\n the ground was distinctly taken, as shown in those debates, that if\n the entire African race was not excluded, their labor would be found\n so valuable that the owners of slaves would bring them there, even\n though slavery were prohibited, under a contract to manumit them in\n two or three years. And it required very little reasoning, on the\n part of those opposed to this class of population, to show that the\n productiveness of their labor would be such as to cause that result.\n An estimate was gone into with reference to the value of the labor of\n this class of people, showing that it would be increased to such an\n extent in the mines of California, that they could not be kept out.\n It was agreed that the labor of a slave in any one of the states from\n which they would be taken, was not worth more than one hundred or one\n hundred and fifty dollars a year, and that in California it would be\n worth from four to six thousand dollars. They would work themselves\n free in one or two years, and thus the country would be filled by\n a class of free blacks, and their former owners have an excellent\n bargain in taking them there.\u201d\n\nYet Mr. Webster stands up before all this array, and says, \u201cGentlemen,\nyou are beside yourselves. You have eaten \u2018of the insane root.\u2019 You\nwould look more in character should you put on the \u2018cap and bells.\u2019 In\nsober sense, in seeing his object clearly and in pursuing it directly,\nDon Quixote was Doctor Franklin, compared with _you_. The dog in the\nfable, who dropped his meat to snap at his shadow, is no allegory in\nyour case. I see two classes around me,--wise men and fools; _you_ do\nnot belong to the former. The chancellor, who keeps the king\u2019s idiots,\nshould have custody of you.\u201d Such is a faithful abstract of what Mr.\nWebster said to southern senators, and, through them, to all the south.\n\nHere certainly was a reflection upon the understanding and intelligence\nof the south, such as never was cast upon them before. But the balm\nwent with the sting. They bore the affront to their judgments, because\nit was so grateful to their politics and pockets. I think it no\ninjustice to those senators to say, that they would have nearly torn\nMr. Webster in pieces for such a collective insult, had it not promised\nto add, what Mr. Mason called \u201cmany hundred fold,\u201d to their individual\nproperty, and to secure and perpetuate their political ascendency.\n\nTo help our conceptions in regard to Mr. Webster\u2019s course on this\nsubject, let us imagine a parallel case,--or, rather, an approximate\none, for there can be no parallel. Suppose a contest between the north\nand the south, on the subject of the tariff, to have been raging for\nyears. The sober blood of the north is heated to the fever point.\nThe newspapers treat of nothing else. Public meetings and private\nconversations discuss no other theme. Hundreds of delegates wait upon\nCongress to add, if it be but a feather\u2019s weight, to the scale which\nholds their interests. Petitions flow in, in thousands and tens of\nthousands. It is announced that Mr. Calhoun will pour out his great\nmind on the subject. Expectation is on tiptoe. All eyes, from all\nsides of the country, are turned towards Washington, as the Moslem\u2019s\nto Mecca. The senate chamber is packed, and the illustrious senator\nrises. After an historic sketch of existing difficulties, after reading\nfrom the speeches which he made in 1832 and in 1846, he proceeds to\nsay that he withdraws all opposition to a tariff,--to any tariff!\nHe will not offend the delicate nerves of northern manufacturers by\nfurther hostility. Were a bill then before him, he would not oppose\nit. \u201cTake the schedules,\u201d says he, scornfully, to northern senators,\n\u201cand fill up the blanks from A to Z with what per centages you please.\nFor _ad valorem_ rates, put in minimums and maximums at your pleasure.\nI will \u2018taunt\u2019 you no longer. I am for peace and the glorious Union.\nI have discovered an irrepealable and irreversible law of nature,\nwhich overrules all the devices of men. You cannot make one yard of\nwoollens or cottons in New England. There, water has no gravity, steam\nhas no force, and wheels will not revolve. In Vermont and New York,\nwool will not grow on sheep\u2019s backs. I have penetrated the geology\nof Pennsylvania, and through all its stratifications there is not a\nthimble full of coal, nor an ounce of iron ore; and, if there were,\ncombustion would not help to forge it; for oxygen and carbon are\ndivorced. As Massachusetts contributed one third of the men and one\nthird of the money to carry on the revolutionary war, I am willing\nto compensate her for her lost blood and treasure to the amount of\nhundreds of millions of dollars, with which she may fertilize the\nbarrenness of her genius, and indulge her insane love for churches and\nschools.\u201d Had the great southern senator spoken thus, I think that even\nidolatrous, man-worshipping South Carolina,--a state which Mr. Calhoun\nhas ruled and moved for the last twenty-five years, as a puppet showman\nplays Punch and Judy,--would have sent forth, through all her organs,\na voice of unanimous dissent.\n\nAs much as freedom is higher than tariff, so much stronger than their\ndissent should be ours.\n\nMr. Webster\u2019s averment that he would not \u201cre\u00e4ffirm an ordinance of\nnature, nor re\u00ebnact the will of God,\u201d (p. 44,) has been commented\non more pungently than I am able or willing to do. It has been well\nsaid that all law and all volition must be in harmony with the will\nof the Good Spirit, or with that of the evil one; and if we will not\nre\u00ebnact the will of the former, then, either all legislation ceases,\nor we must register the decrees of the latter. But one important and\npertinent consideration belongs to this subject, which I have nowhere\nseen developed. It is this: Endless doubts and contradictions exist\namong men, as to what is the will of God; and on no subject is there a\nwider diversity of opinion than on this very subject of slavery. Whose\nlaw was re\u00ebnacted by the ordinance of 1787? whose, when the African\nslave trade was prohibited? whose, when it was declared piracy? True,\nit is useless to put upon our statute books an astronomical law,\nregulating sunrise, or high tides; but that is physical and beyond the\njurisdiction of man, while slavery belongs to morals, and is within\nthe jurisdiction of man. Cease to transcribe upon the statute book\nwhat our wisest and best men believe to be the will of God in regard\nto our worldly affairs, and the passions which we think appropriate\nto devils will soon take possession of society. In regard to slavery,\npiracy, and so forth, there are multitudes of men whose fear of the\npenal sanctions of another life is very much aided by a little salutary\nfine and imprisonment in this. Look at that noble array of principles\nwhich is contained in the Declaration of Rights in the constitution\nof Massachusetts. Is it not a most grand and beautiful exposition of\n\u201cthe will of God,\u201d--a transcript, as it were, from the Book of Life?\nSo of the amendments to the constitution of the United States. Yet our\nfathers thought it no tampering with holy things to enact them; and, in\ntimes of struggle and peril, they have been to many a tempted man as an\nanchor to the soul, sure and steadfast.\n\nI approach Mr. Webster\u2019s treatment of the Texas question with no\nordinary anxiety. Having been accustomed from my very boyhood to regard\nhim as the almost infallible expounder of constitutional law, it is\nimpossible to describe the struggle, the revulsion of mind, with which\nI have passed from an instructed and joyous acquiescence in his former\nopinions to unhesitating dissent from his present ones.\n\nI must premise that I cannot see any necessary or beneficial connection\nbetween the subject of new Texan states and the admission of California\nand the government of the territories. The former refers to some\nindefinite future, when, from its fruitful womb of slavery, Texas\nshall seek to cast forth an untimely birth. In this excited state of\nthe country, at this critical juncture of our affairs, when there is\nsober talk of massacring a majority of the House of Representatives on\ntheir own floor, and a senator, instead of merely threatening to hang\na brother senator on the highest tree, provided he could catch him in\nhis own state, now draws a revolver of six barrels on another brother\nsenator, on the floor of the Senate, in mid-session; at such a time,\nI say, when, however few Abels there may be at work in the political\nfield, there are Cains more than enough, would it not have been well\nto have acted upon the precept, \u201cSufficient unto the day is the evil\nthereof\u201d?\n\nAs the basis of his argument, Mr. Webster quotes the following\nresolution for the admission of Texas, passed March 1, 1845:--\n\n \u201cNew states of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in\n addition to said State of Texas, and having sufficient population,\n may hereafter, by the consent of the said state, be formed out of the\n territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the\n provisions of the federal constitution. And such states as may be\n formed out of that portion of said territory lying south of 36\u00b0 30\u00b4\n north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri compromise line, shall\n be admitted into the Union with or without slavery, as the people of\n each state asking admission may desire; and in such state or states\n as shall be formed out of said territory north of said Missouri\n compromise line, slavery or involuntary servitude, (except for crime,)\n shall be prohibited.\u201d\n\nNote here, first, that only \u201c_four_\u201d states are to be admitted in\n\u201caddition to said state of Texas;\u201d and second, that \u201csuch state or\n_states_,\u201d (in the plural,) as shall be formed from territory north\nof 36\u00b0 30\u00b4, _shall be free_. If _two_, or only _one_ free state is to\nexist on the _north_ side of the line, then how many will be left for\nthe _south_ side? I should expose myself to ridicule were I to set it\ndown arithmetically, _four_ minus _one_, equal to _three_. Yet Mr.\nWebster says, \u201cThe guaranty is, that new states shall be made out of\nit, [the Texan territory,] and that such states as are formed out of\nthat portion of Texas lying south of 36\u00b0 30\u00b4, may come in as slave\nstates, to _the number of_ FOUR, in addition to the state then in\nexistence, and admitted at that time by these resolutions.\u201d (p. 29.)\n\nHere Mr. Webster gives outright to the south and to slavery, one more\nstate than was contracted for,--assuming the contract to be valid.\nHe makes a donation, a gratuity, of an entire slave state, larger\nthan many a European principality. He transfers a whole state, with\nall its beating hearts, present and future; with all its infinite\nsusceptibilities of weal and woe, from the side of freedom to that of\nslavery, in the ledger book of humanity. What a bridal gift for the\nharlot of bondage!\n\nWas not the bargain hard enough, according to its terms? Must we\nfulfil it, and go beyond it? Is a slave state, which dooms our brethren\nof the human race, perhaps interminably, to the vassal\u2019s fate, so\ninsignificant a trifle, that it may be flung in, as small change on the\nsettlement of an account? Has the south been so generous a copartner as\nto deserve this distinguished token of our gratitude?\n\nWhy, by parity of reasoning, could he not have claimed all the four\nstates, \u201cin addition to said state of Texas,\u201d as free states? The\nresolutions divide the territory into two parts, one north and one\nsouth of the line of 36\u00b0 30\u00b4. Could not Mr. Webster have claimed the\nfour states for freedom, with as sound logic and with far better\nhumanity than he surrendered them all to slavery? When Texas and the\nsouth have got their slave states \u201c_to the number of four_\u201d into\nthe Union, whence are we to obtain our one or more free states? The\ncontract will have been executed, and the consent of Texas for another\nstate will be withheld.\n\nNotwithstanding all this, Mr. Webster affirms the right of slavery\nto four more states, in the following words: \u201cI know no form of\nlegislation which can strengthen this. I know no mode of recognition\nthat can add a tittle of weight to it.\u201d Catching the tone of his\nasseveration, I respond that I know no form of statement, nor process\nof reasoning, which can make it more clear, that this is an absolute\nand wanton surrender of the rights of the north and the rights of\nhumanity.\n\nBut I hold the Texan resolutions to have been utterly void; and proceed\nto give the reasons for my opinion.\n\nI begin by quoting Mr. Webster against himself. In an address to\nthe people of the United States, emanating from the Massachusetts\nAnti-Texas state convention, held January 29th, 1845, the subjoined\npassage, which is understood, or rather, I may say, is now well known,\nto have been dictated by Mr. Webster himself, may be found:--\n\n \u201cBut we desire not to be misunderstood. According to our convictions,\n there is no power in any branch of the government, or all its\n branches, to annex foreign territory to this Union. We have made the\n foregoing remarks only to show, that, if any fair construction could\n show such a power to exist any where, or to be exercised in any form,\n yet the manner of its exercise now proposed is _destitute of all\n decent semblance of constitutional propriety_.\u201d\n\nThus cancelling the authority of Mr. Webster in 1850 by the authority\nof Mr. Webster in 1845, I proceed with the argument.\n\nThough the annexation of Texas was in pursuance of a void stipulation,\nyet it is a clear principle of law, that when a contract void between\nthe parties, has been _executed_ by them, it cannot then be annulled.\nIf executed, it becomes valid, not by virtue of the contract but by\nvirtue of the execution. I bow to this legal principle, and would\nfulfil it. But any independent stipulation which remains unexecuted,\nremains invalid. Such is that part of the annexation resolutions\nwhich provides for the admission of a brood of Texan states. The\nresolutions themselves say, in express terms, that the new states are\nto be admitted \u201cunder the provisions of the federal constitution;\u201d\nand the federal constitution says, \u201cNew states may be admitted _by\nthe Congress_ into this Union.\u201d By what Congress? Plainly, by the\nCongress in session at the time when application for admission is\nmade; and by no other. The fourth Texan state may not be ready for\nadmission for fifty years to come; and could the Congress of 1845 bind\nthe Congress of 1900? The Congress of 1900, and all future Congresses,\nwill derive their authority from the constitution of the United States,\nand not from any preceding Congress. Put the case in a negative\nform. Could the Congress of 1845 bind all future Congresses _not_\nto admit new states, and thus, _pro tanto_, annul the constitution?\nPositive or negative, the result is the same. No previous Congress,\non such a subject, can enlarge or limit the power of a subsequent\none. Whenever, therefore, the question of a new Texan state comes up\nfor consideration, the Congress _then in being_ must decide it on its\nown merits, untrammelled by any thing their predecessors have done;\nand, especially, free from a law which, while similar in spirit, is a\nthousand times more odious in principle than statutes of mortmain.\n\nAdmitting that a future Congress, on such a subject, might be bound\nby a _treaty_, I answer that there was no treaty; while the fact that\na treaty clause was introduced into the resolutions, in the Senate,\nfor the sake of obtaining certain votes that would never otherwise\nhave been given in their favor, and under an express pledge from the\nExecutive that the method by treaty should be adopted, which pledge was\nforthwith iniquitously broken by the President, leaves no element of\nbaseness and fraud by which this proceeding was not contaminated. In\nthe name of the constitution, then, and of justice, let every honest\nman denounce those resolutions as void alike in the forum of law and\nin the forum of conscience; and, admitting Texas herself to be in\nthe Union, yet, when application is made for any new state from that\nterritory, let the question be decided upon the merits it may then\npossess.\n\nAnd was not Mr. Webster of the same opinion, when, in Faneuil Hall, in\nNovember, 1845, after the resolutions of annexation had passed, he made\nthe following emphatic, but unprophetic, declaration:--\n\n \u201cIt is thought, it is an idea I do not say how well founded, that\n there may yet be a hope for resistance to the consummation of the act\n of annexation. I can only say for one, that _if it should fall to my\n lot to have a vote on such a question_, AND I VOTE FOR THE ADMISSION\n INTO THIS UNION OF ANY STATE WITH A CONSTITUTION WHICH PROHIBITS EVEN\n THE LEGISLATURE FROM EVER SEEING THE BONDMEN FREE, I SHALL NEVER SHOW\n MY HEAD AGAIN, DEPEND UPON IT, IN FANEUIL HALL.\u201d\n\nThere is another objection to any future claim of Texas to be divided\ninto states, which grows out of her own neglect to fulfil the terms\nand spirit of the agreement. In the \u201cterritory north of the Missouri\ncompromise line, slavery or involuntary servitude, (except for crime,)\nshall be prohibited.\u201d So reads the bond. But if Texas suffer slavery\nto be extended over that part of her territory, then, when it becomes\npopulous enough for admission, and is overspread with slavery, a new\nstate may present a free constitution, be admitted by Congress, and\nbefore the slaves have time to escape, or to carry the question of\nfreedom before the judicial tribunals, _presto!_ this free constitution\nwill be changed into a slave constitution, under the alleged right of a\nstate to decide upon its own domestic institutions; and thus the word\nof promise, which was kept to the ear, will be broken to the hope. If\nTexas meant to abide by the resolutions of annexation, and to claim\nany thing under them, it was her clear and imperative duty forthwith\nto pass a law, securing freedom to every inhabitant north of the\ncompromise line. In this way only can the resolutions be executed in\ntheir true spirit. That territory is now in the condition of an egg. It\nis undergoing incubation. From it a state is hereafter to be hatched;\nbut before promising to accept the chick, it would be agreeable to know\nwhether a viper had impregnated the egg.\n\nThere is a still further objection, of whose soundness I have no\ndoubt; but should I be in error in regard to it, the mistake will\nnot invalidate any other argument. The parties to that agreement\nstipulated on the ground of mutuality, without which all contracts\nare void. Some states were to be admitted to strengthen the hands of\nslavery, and some of freedom. A line of demarcation was drawn. Now, on\ninvestigation, I believe it will most conclusively appear that there\nis not an inch of Texan territory north of the stipulated line. It all\nbelongs to New Mexico, as much as Nantucket or Berkshire belongs to\nMassachusetts. It was a mistake on the part of the contracting parties;\nif, on the part of Texas, it was not something worse than a mistake.\nThe mutuality, then, fails. The contract is _nudum pactum_. Texas can\ngive nothing for what she was to receive; and is, therefore, entitled\nto receive nothing but what she has got.\n\nIn regard to \u201cthe business of seeing that fugitives are delivered up,\u201d\nMr. Webster says, \u201cMy friend at the head of the judiciary committee,\n[Mr. BUTLER, of South Carolina,] has a bill on the subject now before\nthe Senate, with some amendments to it, which I propose to support,\nwith all its provisions, to the fullest extent.\u201d\n\nHere is Mr. Butler\u2019s bill, with Mr. Mason\u2019s amendments:--\n\n                                 A BILL\n\n _To provide for the more effectual execution of the 3d clause of\n the 2d section of the 4th article of the Constitution of the United\n States._\n\n _Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the\n United States of America in Congress assembled_, That when a person\n held to service or labor in any state or territory of the United\n States, under the laws of such state or territory, shall escape into\n any other of the said states or territories, the person to whom such\n service or labor may be due, his or her agent or attorney, is hereby\n empowered to seize or arrest such fugitive from service or labor, and\n take him or her before any judge of the circuit or district courts\n of the United States, or before any commissioner, or clerk of such\n courts, or marshal thereof, or any postmaster of the United States,\n or collector of the customs of the United States, residing or being\n within such state wherein such seizure or arrest shall be made, and\n upon proof to the satisfaction of such judge, commissioner, clerk,\n marshal, postmaster, or collector, as the case may be, either by oral\n testimony or affidavit taken before and certified by any person\n authorized to administer an oath under the laws of the United States,\n or of any state, that the person so seized or arrested, under the laws\n of the state or territory from which he or she fled, owes service or\n labor to the person claiming him or her, it shall be the duty of such\n judge, commissioner, clerk, marshal, postmaster, or collector, to give\n a certificate thereof to such claimant, his or her agent or attorney,\n which certificate shall be a sufficient warrant for taking and\n removing such fugitive from service or labor to the state or territory\n from which he or she fled.\n\n SEC. 2. _And be it further enacted_, That when a person held to\n service or labor, as mentioned in the first section of this act,\n shall escape from such service or labor, as therein mentioned, the\n person to whom such service or labor may be due, his or her agent or\n attorney, may apply to any one of the officers of the United States\n named in said section, other than a marshal of the United States, for\n a warrant to seize and arrest such fugitive, and upon affidavit being\n made before such officer, (each of whom for the purposes of this act\n is hereby authorized to administer an oath or affirmation,) by such\n claimant, his or her agent, that such person does, under the laws of\n the state or territory from which he or she fled, owe service or labor\n to such claimant, it shall be, and is hereby made, the duty of such\n officer, to and before whom such application and affidavit is made, to\n issue his warrant to any marshal of any of the courts of the United\n States to seize and arrest such alleged fugitive, and to bring him or\n her forthwith, or on a day to be named in such warrant, before the\n officer issuing such warrant, or either of the officers mentioned in\n said first section, except the marshal to whom the said warrant is\n directed, which said warrant or authority the said marshal is hereby\n authorized and directed in all things to obey.\n\n SECT. 3. _And be it further enacted_, That upon affidavit made as\n aforesaid by the claimant of such fugitive, his agent or attorney,\n after such certificate has been issued, that he has reason to\n apprehend that such fugitive will be rescued by force from his or\n their possession, before he can be taken beyond the limits of the\n state in which the arrest is made, it shall be the duty of the officer\n making the arrest to retain such fugitive in his custody, and to\n remove him to the state whence he fled, and there to deliver him to\n said claimant, his agent or attorney. And to this end, the officer\n aforesaid is hereby authorized and required to employ so many persons\n as he may deem necessary to overcome such force, and to retain them in\n his service so long as circumstances may require. The said officer and\n his assistants, while so employed, to receive the same compensation\n and to be allowed the same expenses as are now allowed by law for\n transportation of criminals, to be certified by the judge of the\n district within which the arrest is made, and paid out of the treasury\n of the United States: _Provided_, That, before such charges are\n incurred, the claimant, his agent or attorney, shall secure to said\n officer payment of the same, and in case no actual force be opposed,\n then they shall be paid by such claimant, his agent or attorney.\n\n SEC. 4. _And be it further enacted_, When a warrant shall have been\n issued by any of the officers under the second section of this act,\n and there shall be no marshal or deputy marshal within ten miles of\n the place where such warrant is issued, it shall be the duty of the\n officer issuing the same, at the request of the claimant, his agent\n or attorney, to appoint some fit and discreet person, who shall be\n willing to act as marshal, for the purpose of executing said warrant;\n and such person so appointed shall, to the extent of executing said\n warrant, and detaining and transporting the fugitive named therein,\n have all the power and authority, and be, with his assistants,\n entitled to the same compensation and expenses provided in this act in\n cases where the services are performed by the marshals of the courts.\n\n SEC. 5. _And be it further enacted_, That any person who shall\n knowingly and willingly obstruct or hinder such claimant, his agent\n or attorney, or any person or persons assisting him, her, or them,\n in so serving or arresting such fugitive from service or labor, or\n shall rescue such fugitive from such claimant, his agent or attorney,\n when so arrested, pursuant to the authority herein given or declared,\n or shall aid, abet, or assist such person so owing service or labor\n to escape from such claimant, his agent or attorney, or shall harbor\n or conceal such person, after notice that he or she was a fugitive\n from labor, as aforesaid, shall, for either of the said offences,\n forfeit and pay the sum of one thousand dollars, which penalty may be\n recovered by and for the benefit of such claimant, by action of debt\n in any court proper to try the same, saving, moreover, to the person\n claiming such labor or service, his right of action for, or on account\n of, the said injuries, or either of them.\n\n SEC. 6. _And be it further enacted_, That when said person is seized\n or arrested, under and by virtue of the said warrant, by such marshal,\n and is brought before either of the officers aforesaid, other than the\n said marshal, it shall be the duty of such officer to proceed in the\n case of such person, in the same way as he is directed and authorized\n to do when such person is seized and arrested by the person claiming\n him, or by his or her agent or attorney, and is brought before such\n officer under the provisions of the first section of this act.\n\n\n                              AMENDMENTS\n\n Intended to be proposed by Mr. Mason to the bill (Senate, 23) to\n provide for the more effectual execution of the third clause of the\n second section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United\n States.\n\n At the end of section 5, add:\n\n And any person or persons offending against the provisions of this\n section, to be moreover deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, or of\n obstructing the due execution of the laws of the United States, and\n upon conviction thereof shall be fined in the sum of one thousand\n dollars, one half whereof shall be to the use of the informer; and\n shall also be imprisoned for the term of twelve months.\n\n At the end of section 6, add:\n\n And in no trial or hearing under this act shall the testimony of such\n fugitive be admitted in evidence.\n\nIt will be observed that the first section of the bill, after\nconstituting the judges of the courts, the seventeen thousand\npostmasters, the collectors, &c., tribunals, _without appeal_, for the\ndelivery of any body, who is sworn by any body, any where, to be a\nfugitive slave, refers to the before-mentioned officers in the words\n\u201cresiding or _being_ within such state where such seizure or arrest\nis made.\u201d That is, the judge, postmaster, collector, &c., need not be\nan inhabitant of the state, or hold his office in the state where the\nseizure is made; but it is sufficient if he is such officer any where\nwithin the United States. Mr. Butler or Mr. Mason, therefore, may send\nthe postmaster of his own city or village into Massachusetts, with an\nagent or attorney, who brings his affidavit from South Carolina or\nVirginia, in his pocket; the agent or attorney may arrest any body, at\nany time, carry him before his accomplice, go through with the judicial\nforms, and hurry him to the south; the officer, after his judicial\nfunctions are discharged, turning bailiff, protecting the prey and\nspeeding the flight!\n\nStill further; this bill derides the trial by jury, secured by the\nconstitution. A man may not lose a horse without a right to this\ntrial; but he may his freedom. Mr. Webster spoke for the south and\nfor slavery; not for the north and for freedom, when he abandoned\nthis right. Such an abandonment, it would be impossible to believe\nof one who has earned such fame as defender of the constitution; it\nwould be more reasonable to suppose the existence of some strange\nmisapprehension, had not Mr. Webster, with that precision and strength\nwhich are so peculiarly his own, declared his determination to support\nthis hideous bill, \u201cwith all its provisions to the fullest extent,\u201d\nwhen, at the same moment, another bill, of which he took no notice,\nwas pending before the Senate, introduced by Mr. Seward, of New York,\nsecuring the invaluable privilege of a jury trial.\n\nI disdain to avail myself, in a sober argument, of the popular\nsensitiveness on this subject; and I acknowledge my obligations to the\nconstitution while it is suffered to last. But still I say, that the\nman who can read this bill without having his blood boil in his veins,\nhas a power of refrigeration that would cool the tropics.\n\nI cannot doubt that Mr. Webster will yet see the necessity of\nreconsidering his position on this whole question.\n\nMr. Webster says, \u201cIt is my firm opinion, this day, that within the\nlast twenty years as much money has been collected and paid to the\nabolition societies, abolition presses, and abolition lecturers, as\nwould purchase the freedom of every slave, man, woman, and child, in\nthe State of Maryland, and send them all to Liberia.\u201d\n\nThe total number of slaves in Maryland, according to the last census,\namounted to 89,405. At $250 apiece,--which is but about half the value\ncommonly assigned to southern slaves by southern men,--this would be\n$22,373,750. Allowing $30 each for transportation to Liberia, without\nany provision for them after their arrival there, the whole sum would\nbe $25,058,600,--in round numbers, twenty-five millions of dollars!\nmore than a million and a quarter in each year, and about thirty-five\nhundred dollars per day. I had not supposed the abolitionists had such\nresources at their command!\n\nI have dwelt thus long upon Mr. Webster\u2019s speech, because in connection\nwith his two votes in favor of Mr. Foote\u2019s committee of compromise,\nwhich votes, had they been the other way, would have utterly defeated\nthe committee, it is considered to have done more to jeopard the great\ncause of freedom in the territories, than any other event of this\ndisastrous session. I have spoken of Mr. Webster by name, and, I trust,\nin none but respectful terms. I might have introduced other names, or\nexamined his positions without mentioning him. I have taken what seemed\nto me the more manly course; and if these views should ever by chance\nfall under his eye, I believe he has magnanimity enough to respect me\nthe more for the frankness I have used. If I am wrong, I will not add\nto an error of judgment the meanness of a clandestine attack. If I am\nright, no one can complain; for we must all bow before the majesty of\ntruth.\n\nI have now noticed the principal events which have taken place in\nCongress, and which have led to what military men would call the\n\u201cdemoralization\u201d of many of the rank and file of its members. Some\nrecent movements have brought vividly to mind certain historical\nrecollections in regard to the African slave trade, now execrated by\nall civilized nations. When the immortal Wilberforce exposed to public\ngaze the secrets of that horrid traffic, his biographer says, \u201cThe\nfirst burst of generous indignation promised nothing less than the\ninstant abolition of the trade, but _mercantile_ jealousy had taken\nthe alarm, and the defenders of the West India system found themselves\nstrengthened by the independent alliance of _commercial_ men.\u201d--_Life\nof Wilberforce_, vol. i. p. 291.\n\nAgain; opposition to Wilberforce\u2019s motion \u201carose amongst the Guinea\n_merchants_,\u201d--\u201cre\u00ebnforced, however, before long by the great body of\nWest India planters.\u201d--_Ibid._\n\nThe corporation of Liverpool spent, first and last, upwards of \u00a310,000\nin defence of a traffic which even the gravity and calmness of judicial\ndecisions have since pronounced \u201cinfernal.\u201d\n\n\u201cBesides printing works in defence of the slave trade and remunerating\ntheir authors; paying the expenses of delegates to attend in London\nand watch Mr. Wilberforce\u2019s proceedings, they pensioned the widows of\nNorris and Green, and voted plate to Mr. Penny, for their exertions in\nthis cause.\u201d--_Ibid._ p. 345.\n\nIt is said, that the corporation of Liverpool, at this time, \u201cbelieved\nfirmly that the very existence of the city depended upon the\ncontinuance of the traffic.\u201d Look at Liverpool now, and reflect what\ngreater rewards, even of a temporal nature, God reserves for men that\nabjure dishonesty and crime.\n\nAll collateral motives were brought to bear upon the subject, just\nas they are at the present time. The Guinea trade was defended \u201cas a\nnursery for seamen.\u201d--_Ibid._ p. 293.\n\nEven as late as 1816, the same class of men, in the same country,\nopposed the abolition of \u201cwhite slavery\u201d in Algiers, from the same\nbase motives of interest. It was thought that the danger of navigating\nthe Mediterranean, caused by the Barbary corsairs, was advantageous\nto British commerce; because it might deter the merchant ships of\nother nations from visiting it. After Lord Exmouth had compelled the\nAlgerines to liberate their European slaves, he proceeded against Tunis\nand Tripoli. In giving an account of what he had done, he defends his\nconduct \u201cupon general principles,\u201d but adds, \u201cas applying to our own\ncountry, [Great Britain,] it may not be borne out, _the old mercantile\ninterest being against it_.\u201d--_Osler\u2019s Life of Exmouth_, p. 303.\n\nSo after Admiral Blake, in the time of Cromwell, had attacked Tunis,\nhe says, in his despatch to Secretary Thurloe, \u201cAnd now seeing it hath\npleased God soe signally to justify us herein, I hope his highness will\nnot be offended at it, nor any who regard duly the honor of the nation,\n_although I expect to have the clamors of_ INTERESTED MEN.\u201d--_Thurloe\u2019s\nState Papers_, vol. ii. p. 390.\n\nAnd is commerce, the daughter of freedom, thus forever to lift her\nparricidal hand against the parent that bore her? Are rich men\nforever to use their \u201cthirty pieces of silver,\u201d or their \u201cten thousand\npounds sterling,\u201d or their hundreds of thousands of dollars, to\nreward the Judases for betraying their Savior? Viewed by the light\nof our increased knowledge, and by our more elevated standard of\nduty, the extension of slavery into California or New Mexico, at the\npresent time, or even the sufferance of it there, is a vastly greater\ncrime than was the African slave trade itself, in the last century;\nand I would rather meet the doom of posterity, or of heaven, for\nbeing engaged in the traffic then, than for being accessory to its\npropagation now.\n\nLet those who aid, abet, or connive at slavery extension now, as they\nread the damning sentence which history has awarded against the actors,\nabettors, and connivers of the African trade, _but change the names_,\nand they will be reading of themselves. Should our new territories be\nhereafter filled with groaning bondmen, should they become an American\nEgypt, tyrannized over by ten thousand Pharaohs, it will be no defence\nfor those who permitted it, to say, \u201cWe hoped, we supposed, we trusted,\nthat slavery could not go there;\u201d Nemesis, as she plies her scorpion\nlash, will reply, \u201c_You might have made it certain_.\u201d\n\nOn this great question of freedom or slavery, I have observed with\ngrief, nay, with anguish, that we, at the north, break up into hostile\nparties, hurl criminations and recriminations to and fro, and expend\nthat strength for the ruin of each other, which should be directed\nagainst the enemies of liberty; while, at the south, whenever slavery\nis in jeopardy, all party lines are obliterated, dissensions are\nhealed, enemies become friends, and all are found in a solid column,\nwith an unbroken front. Are the children of darkness to be forever\n_so much_ wiser than the children of light? In the recent choice of\ndelegates for the Nashville convention, I have not seen a single\ninstance where Whig and Democrat have not been chosen as though they\nwere Siamese twins, and must go together. But here it often happens,\nthat as soon as one party is known to be in favor of one man, this\npreference alone is deemed a sufficient reason why another party should\noppose him. Why can we not combine for the sacred cause of freedom,\nas they combine for slavery? No thought or desire is further from my\nmind than that of interfering with any man\u2019s right of suffrage; but if,\n(which is by no means impossible, nor perhaps improbable,) the fate of\nNew Mexico should be decided by one vote, and my vote should have been\nthe cause of a vacancy in any Congressional district that might have\nsent a friend to freedom, I should say, with Cain, \u201cMy punishment is\ngreater than I can bear.\u201d\n\nOn the subject of the present alienation and discord between the\nnorth and the south, I wish to say that I have as strong a desire for\nreconciliation and amity as any one can have. There is no _pecuniary_\nsacrifice within the limits of the constitution, which I would not\nwillingly make for so desirable an object. Public revenues I would\nappropriate, private taxation I would endure, to relieve this otherwise\nthrice-glorious republic from the calamity and the wrong of slavery. I\nwould not only resist the devil, but if he will flee from me, I will\nbuild a bridge of gold to facilitate his escape. I mention this to\nprove that it is not the value, _in money_, of territorial freedom,\nfor which I contend, but its value _in character_, _in justice_, _in\nhuman happiness_. While I utterly deny the claim set up by the south,\nyet I would gladly consent that my southern fellow-citizens should go\nto the territories and carry there every kind of property which I can\ncarry; I would then give to the Southern States their full share of all\nthe income ever to be derived from the sales of the public lands, or\nthe leasing of the public mines; and whatever, after this deduction,\nwas left in the public treasury, should be appropriated for the whole\nnation, as has been the practice heretofore. That is, in consideration\nof excluding slavery from the territories, I would give the south a\ndouble share, or even a three-fold share, of all the income that may\never be derived from them. Pecuniary surrenders I would gladly make for\nthe sake of peace, but not for peace itself would I surrender liberty.\n\nIt would be to suppose our merchants and manufacturers void of common\nforesight, could they believe that concession now will bring security\nhereafter. By yielding the moral question, they jeopard their pecuniary\ninterests. Should the south succeed in their present attempt upon the\nterritories, they will impatiently await the retirement of General\nTaylor from the executive chair, to add the \u201cState of Cuba,\u201d with its\n500,000 slaves, its ignorance and its demoralization, to their roll of\ntriumph. California will be a free-trade state, by the most certain of\nall biases. They will have nothing to sell but gold; they will have\nevery thing to buy,--cradles and coffins, and all between. If New\nMexico is slave, it will also be free trade; and Cuba as certainly as\neither,--though in that island facilities for smuggling will reduce\nthe difference between tariff and free trade to nothing. A surrender,\ntherefore, by our northern business men, will be most disastrous to\nthe very business that tempts them to surrender. Will they take no\nwarning from the fact that their apathy in regard to Texas repealed the\ntariff of 1842? This is a low motive, I admit; but it may be set as a\nback-fire to the motive by which some of them appear to be influenced.\nThere was no need, not a shadow of need, of perilling any principle,\nnor any interest. Had the north stood firm, had they been true to the\ngreat principles they have so often and so solemnly proclaimed, the\nwaves of southern violence would have struck harmless at their feet.\nHe is not learned in the weather who does not know that storms from\nthe south, though violent, are short. We are assailed now because we\nhave yielded before. The compromise of 1820 begat the nullification of\n1832; the compromise of 1832 inspired the mad exploit of compassing\nTexas, which our greater madness made sane. The moral paralysis which\nfailed to oppose the Mexican war, has given us the territories. If the\nterritories are now surrendered, we shall have Cuba, and an indefinite\ncareer of conquest and of slavery will be opened on our south-western\nborder. Every new concession transfers strength from our side to the\nside of our opponents; and if we cannot arrest our own course when we\nare just entering the rapids, how can we arrest it when we come near\nthe verge of the cataract? The south may rule the Union, but they\ncannot divide it. Their whole Atlantic seaboard is open to attack,\nand powerless for defence; and the Mississippi River may as easily be\ndivided physically as politically into independent portions. With these\nadvantages, let us never aggress upon their rights, but let us maintain\nour own.\n\nFellow-citizens, I would gladly relieve the darkness of this picture by\nsome gleams of light. There are two hopes which, as yet, are not wholly\nextinguished in my mind. Beyond all question, a compromise bill will be\nreported by the committee of thirteen, in which free California will be\nmade to carry as great a burden of slavery as she can bear. It is still\n_possible_ that the House will treat, as it deserves, this adulterous\nunion. A single vote may turn the scale, and Massachusetts may give\nthat vote. Not improbably, too, the fate of the bill may depend upon\nthe earnestness and decision with which northern constituencies make\ntheir sentiments known to their representatives, whether by petitions,\nby private letters, or by public resolutions. Let every lover of\nfreedom do his best and his most.\n\nShould the north fail, I have still one hope more. It is, that New\nMexico will do for herself what we shall have basely failed to do\nfor her. If both these hopes fail, our country is doomed to run its\nunobstructed career of conquest, of despotism, and of infamy.\n\nI have now, my fellow-citizens, given you my \u201cViews and Opinions\u201d\non the present crisis in our public affairs. Had I regarded my own\nfeelings, I should have spoken less at length; but the subject has\ncommanded me. I trust I have spoken respectfully towards those from\nwhom I dissent, while speaking my own sentiments justly and truly. I\nhave used no asperity; for all my emotions have been of grief, and not\nof anger. My words have been cool as the telegraphic wires, while my\nfeelings have been like the lightning that runs through them. The idea\nthat Massachusetts should contribute or consent to the extension of\nhuman slavery!--is it not enough, not merely to arouse the living from\ntheir torpor, but the dead from their graves! Were I to help this, nay,\ndid I not oppose it with all the powers and faculties which God has\ngiven me, I should see myriads of agonized faces glaring out upon me\nfrom the future, more terrible than Duncan\u2019s at Macbeth; and I would\nrather feel an assassin\u2019s poniard in my breast than forever hereafter\nto see \u201cthe air-drawn dagger\u201d of a guilty memory. In Massachusetts, the\ngreat drama of the revolution began. Some of its heroes yet survive\namongst us. At Lexington, at Concord, and on Bunker Hill, the grass\nstill grows greener where the soil was fattened with the blood of our\nfathers. If, in the providence of God, we must be vanquished in this\ncontest, let it be by force of the overmastering and inscrutable powers\nabove us, and not by our own base desertion.\n\nI am, gentlemen, your much honored, obliged, and obedient servant,\n\n                                                            HORACE MANN.\n\n\n\n\n                              LETTER II.\n\n\n TO THE EDITORS OF THE BOSTON ATLAS;\n\nGENTLEMEN; Your semi-weekly of the 1st instant contains a letter of\nthe Hon. Daniel Webster, to certain citizens of Newburyport, in which\nhe has been pleased to refer to me, and particularly to a passage in\nthe letter which I addressed to a portion of my constituents, on the\n3d of May last, [the preceding Letter.] His reference to me is of so\nextraordinary a character, both as to manner and matter, that I wish\nto reply. To prevent all chance of mistake, I quote the following\npassages:--\n\n \u201cBut, at the same time, nothing is more false than that such jury\n trial is demanded in cases of this kind by the constitution, either\n in its letter or in its spirit. The constitution declares that in all\n criminal prosecutions there shall be a trial by jury. The claiming of\n a fugitive slave is not a criminal prosecution.\n\n \u201cThe constitution also declares that in suits at common law the trial\n by jury shall be preserved; the reclaiming of a fugitive slave is not\n a suit at the common law; and there is no other clause or sentence in\n the constitution having the least bearing on the subject.\n\n \u201cI have seen a publication by Mr. Horace Mann, a member of Congress\n from Massachusetts, in which I find this sentence. Speaking of the\n bill before the Senate, he says: \u2018This bill derides the trial by jury\n secured by the constitution. A man may not lose his horse without a\n right to this trial, but he may lose his freedom. Mr. Webster speaks\n for the south and for slavery, not for the north and for freedom, when\n he abandons this right.\u2019 This personal vituperation does not annoy\n me, but I lament to see a public man of Massachusetts so crude and\n confused in his legal apprehensions, and so little acquainted with the\n constitution of his country, as these opinions evince Mr. Mann to be.\n His citation of a supposed case, as in point, if it have any analogy\n to the matter, would prove that, if Mr. Mann\u2019s horse stray into his\n neighbor\u2019s field, _he cannot lead him back without a previous trial\n by jury to ascertain the right_. Truly, if what Mr. Mann says of the\n provisions of the constitution in this publication be a test of his\n accuracy in the understanding of that instrument, he would do well\n not to seek to protect his peculiar notions under its sanction, but\n to appeal at once, as others do, to that higher authority which sits\n enthroned above the constitution and above the law.\u201d\n\nI must deny this charge of \u201cpersonal vituperation;\u201d nothing was further\nfrom my thoughts; and I regret that Mr. Webster, while disclaiming\n\u201cannoyance\u201d at what I said, should betray it. I believe every part\nof my \u201cLetter\u201d to be within the bounds of courteous and respectful\ndiscussion. There is nothing in it which might not pass between\ngentlemen, without interrupting relations of civility or friendship.\nThough full of regret at his novel position, and of dissent from his\nunwonted doctrines, yet it abounds in proofs of deference to himself.\nI must now, however, be permitted to add that the highest eminence\nbecomes unenviable when it breeds intolerance of dissent, or bars out\nthe humblest man from a free expression of opinion.\n\nMr. Webster \u201claments to see a public man of Massachusetts so crude and\nconfused in his legal apprehensions, and so little acquainted with the\nconstitution of his country, as these opinions evince Mr. Mann to be.\u201d\nYet he points out no error of opinion. He specifies nothing as unsound.\nJudgment and condemnation alone appear. He seems to have taken it for\ngranted that he had only to say I was guilty, and then proceed to\npunish. I protest against and impugn this method of proceeding, by any\nman, however high, against any man, however humble.\n\nWhen Mr. Webster penned his \u201clamentations\u201d over my crudeness,\nconfusion, and ignorance, he doubtless meant to deal me a mortal blow.\nThe blow was certainly heavy: but the question still remains, _whether\nit hit_. Polyphemus struck hard blows, but his blindness left the\nobjects of his passions unharmed.\n\nBut wherein do those erroneous \u201copinions\u201d consist, which Mr. Webster\ndoes not deign to specify, but assumes to condemn? Fortunately, in\nwriting the sentence which he quotes for animadversion, I followed\nthe precise meaning of Judge Story, as laid down in his Commentaries;\nand in regard to the only point which is open to a question, _I took\nthe exact words_ of that great jurist. He speaks of \u201cthe right of a\ntrial by jury, in civil cases,\u201d as an existing right _before_ the\nseventh article of amendment to the constitution, which _preserves this\nright_ \u201cin suits at common law,\u201d had been adopted. (3 Comm., 628.)\nInstead of transcribing Judge Story\u2019s words, \u201cin civil cases,\u201d which\npresent no distinct image to common minds, I supposed the every-day\ncase of litigation respecting a horse, which is a \u201ccivil case;\u201d and\nthis difference of form is the only difference between my language\nand that of the learned judge. I can wish Mr. Webster no more fitting\nretribution, after reposing from this ill-tempered attack upon me, than\nto awake and find that it was Judge Story whom he had been maligning.\n\nDoes not the authority of Judge Blackstone also support my position? He\nsays,--\n\n \u201cRecapture or reprisal is another species of remedy, by the mere\n act of the party injured.... But as the public peace is a superior\n consideration to any one man\u2019s private property; and as, if\n individuals were once allowed to use private force as a remedy for\n private injuries, all social justice must cease, the strong would give\n law to the weak, and every man would revert to a state of nature; for\n these reasons, it is provided that this natural right of recaption\n shall never be exerted, where such exertion must occasion strife\n and bodily contention, or endanger the peace of society. If, for\n instance, my horse is taken away, and I find him in a common, a fair,\n or a public inn, I may lawfully seize him to my own use; but I cannot\n justify breaking open a private stable, _or entering on the grounds of\n a third person, to take him_, should he be feloniously stolen; _but\n must have recourse to an action at law_.\u201d--_Comm._ 4, 5.\n\nBut the opinion expressed by me on this point does not need the\nauthority of any name to support it; and the illustration which I gave\nis not only intelligible to every sensible man, but is also apposite.\nI said \u201ca man may not lose his horse, [i. e. his property in a horse,]\nwithout a right to this trial.\u201d Mr. Webster\u2019s comment is, that this\ncase, \u201cif it have any analogy to the matter,\u201d means, that if a man\u2019s\nhorse \u201c_stray_ into his neighbor\u2019s field, _he cannot lead him back\nwithout a previous trial by jury to ascertain the right_.\u201d Was ever the\nplain meaning of a sentence more exactly changed about, end for end?\nMr. Webster may pitch somersets with his own doctrines, but he has no\nright to pitch them with mine. I said a man may not _lose_ his horse,\nor his property in a horse, without a right to the trial by jury. He\nsays I said, a man cannot _find_ or _retake_ a lost horse, without a\nprevious trial! _Dulce est desipere in loco._ Or, it is pleasant to see\na grave senator play upon words;--though there should be some wit to\nredeem it from puerility.\n\nBut the childishness of this criticism is not its worst feature. What\nis the great _truth_ which Mr. Webster and his apologists attempt here\nto ridicule? It is this: While every man amongst us, in regard to any\npiece of property worth more than twenty dollars, of which violence or\nfraud may attempt to despoil him, has a right to a trial by jury; yet a\nman\u2019s freedom, and that of his posterity forever, may be wrested from\nhim, as our law now stands, without such a trial. Does not this hold a\nman\u2019s freedom to be of less value than twenty dollars? If two adverse\nclaimants contest title to an alleged slave, whose market value is more\nthan this sum, each is entitled to a jury to try the fact of ownership.\nBut if the alleged slave declares, here, in Massachusetts, that he owns\nhimself, he is debarred from this right. And this truth, or a common\nillustration of it, Mr. Webster and his apologists think a suitable\ntopic for sneers or pleasantry! A French proverb says, that for a\nman to kill his mother _is not in good taste_. I trust the moral and\nreligious people of Massachusetts have too much _good taste_ to relish\njokes on such a theme.\n\nAgain; I said that Mr. Butler\u2019s bill \u201cderides\u201d the trial by jury.\nBy that bill every commissioner and clerk of a United States court,\nevery marshal and collector of the customs, and the seventeen\nthousand postmasters of the United States, are severally invested\nwith jurisdiction and authority in all parts of the United States, to\ndeliver any man, woman, or child in the United States, into custody,\nas a slave, on the strength of an _ex parte_ affidavit, made any where\nin the United States. This affidavit may have been made a thousand\nmiles off, by no one knows whom, and certified to by a person who\nnever saw or heard of the individual named in it. A forged affidavit,\nor a fictitious affidavit, would often answer the purpose as well;\nfor how difficult, and in many cases, how impossible, to prove its\nspuriousness. Did oppression ever before conceive such a tribunal, so\ncountless in numbers, so ample in jurisdiction, so terrible in power?\nHad a bill similar to this been proposed in the British Parliament,\nfrom 1763 to 1776, what would our fathers have said of it? Yet this\nbill, with some kindred amendments, heightening its features of\natrocity, Mr. Webster promised \u201cto support, with all its provisions,\nto the fullest extent.\u201d\n\nWhat aggravates the wrong, is, that the cruelties of the measure will\nfall upon the poor, the helpless, the ignorant, the unfriended. The\nbill would have been far less disgraceful, had its provisions borne\nupon the men who should pass it; because, in such case, there would\nhave been a touch of equality. Now, if this bill does not \u201c_deride_\u201d\nall guaranties for the protection of human liberty, it is only because\nmy word of reprobation is too weak. It is only because one needs \u201cto\ntear a leaf from the curse-book of Pandemonium\u201d in order to describe it\nby fitting epithets.\n\nAnother remarkable feature of Mr. Butler\u2019s bill is, that it provides no\npenalty whatever for any one who shall abuse, or fraudulently use, the\ndangerous authority which it gives. It furnishes endless temptations\nand facilities for committing wrong; it imposes no restraints; it warns\nby no threats of retribution.\n\nMr. Webster calls me to account for some unspecified erroneous\n\u201copinion,\u201d expressed in relation to this bill. Can any opinion be so\nfalse to the constitution, as this bill to humanity? I deprecate error\nof all sorts; but hold it to be more venial to err in judgment than in\nheart.\n\nI said that in promising to support Mr. Butler\u2019s bill, \u201cwith all its\nprovisions, to the fullest extent,\u201d Mr. Webster \u201cabandoned\u201d the right\nto a trial by jury. I spoke of him as a senator, as one who, with his\nco-legislators, was bound, in fulfilment of his constitutional duty,\nto secure this form of trial to the alleged slave, or to a known\nfreeman seized as a slave. Mr. Seward\u2019s bill, providing for the trial\nby jury, in such cases, was before him. He took no notice of it. He\npassed by \u201con the other side,\u201d while he bestowed his best encomium\non Mr. Butler\u2019s bill, by promising to support it. Was not this an\n\u201cabandonment,\u201d under any of the synonyms given in the dictionary?\n\nMr. Webster advises me, in a certain contingency, \u201cto appeal to that\nhigher authority which sits enthroned above the constitution and\nabove the law.\u201d I take no exception to this counsel, because of its\nofficiousness, but would thank him for it. My ideas of duty require me\nto seek anxiously for the true interpretation of the constitution, and\nthen to abide by it, unswayed by hopes or fears. If the constitution\nrequires me to do any thing which my sense of duty forbids, I shall\nsave my conscience by resigning my office. I am free, however, to say,\nthat if, in the discharge of my political duties, I should transfer my\nallegiance to any other power, I should adopt Mr. Webster\u2019s ironical\nadvice, and go to the power \u201cwhich sits enthroned above,\u201d rather\nthan descend to that opposite realm, whence the bill he so cordially\npromised to support must have emerged.\n\nI wish, however, to remark, that though I acknowledge the constitution\nto be my guide while under oath to support it, yet I do not relish this\nfling either at the powers above us, or at those who reverence them. I\nhold it to be not only proper, but proof of sound moral and religious\nfeeling, to look to the perfect law of God for light to enable us more\njustly to interpret the imperfect laws of man. Especially, when we are\nproposing to make or amend a law, ought we to take our gauge of purpose\nand of action from the highest standard.\n\nNoy, that Solomon of the law, thought it not improper to say, \u201cThe\ninferior law must give place to the superior; man\u2019s laws to God\u2019s\nlaws.\u201d--_Maxims_, pp. 6, 7.\n\n\u201cThe law of Nature,\u201d says Blackstone, \u201cbeing coeval with mankind, and\ndictated by God himself, is, of course, superior in obligation to any\nother. It is binding all over the globe; in all countries, at all\ntimes. No human laws have any validity, if contrary to this; and such\nof them as are valid, derive all their force and all their authority,\nmediately or immediately, from this original.\u201d--1 _Com._ 41.\n\nFortescue, the Chancellor of Henry VI., in his _De Laudibus Legum\nAngli\u00e6_, cap. 42, has the following passage, the consideration of\nwhich, in requital for Mr. Webster\u2019s advice to me, I respectfully\ncommend to him:--\n\n \u201cThat must necessarily be adjudged a cruel law, which augments\n slavery, and diminishes liberty. For human nature implores, without\n ceasing, for liberty. Slavery is introduced by man, and through his\n vice. But liberty is the gift of God to man. Wherefore, when torn from\n a man, it ever yearns to return; and it is the same with every thing\n when deprived of its natural liberty. On this account, that man is to\n be adjudged cruel, who does not favor liberty. By these considerations\n the laws of England, in every case, give favor to liberty.\u201d\n\nHaving defended my own propositions, I shall now take the liberty to\nexamine some of Mr. Webster\u2019s; and, in so doing, I shall examine the\nconstitutional provisions for trial by jury, and fortify my opinion by\nhistorical references. I shall consider,\n\nI. _Where Congress has power to provide for such trial._\n\nII. _Where it is the duty of Congress to do so._\n\nMr. Webster says \u201cthe constitution declares, that in all criminal\nprosecutions, there shall be a trial by jury;\u201d and that \u201cin suits at\ncommon law the trial by jury shall be preserved.\u201d He then adds, \u201cThere\nis no other clause or sentence in the constitution having the least\nbearing upon the subject.\u201d Mark his words: \u201cThere is no other clause\nor sentence in the constitution, _having the least bearing on the\nsubject_.\u201d This I deny.\n\nHere Mr. Webster virtually declares that, but for the above-named two\nprovisions, the right of the trial by jury would not have been secured\nto us by the constitution _in any case_. Of course, in the absence of\nthese provisions, Congress would have been under no obligation, nor\nwould it, indeed, have had any power, to provide by law for such trials.\n\nWere I to say that this assertion borders on the incredible, one might\nwell ask, Which side of the line does it lie?\n\nThe provision for a trial by jury, _in criminal prosecutions_, is in\nthe third clause of the second section of the third article, and is\nrepeated, and somewhat enlarged, in the fifth and sixth articles of\namendment.\n\nBut the provision for trial by jury, _in suits at common law_, is in\nthe seventh article of amendment; and neither this provision, nor any\nsemblance of it, is to be found, in express words, in any part of the\nconstitution as it came from the hands of its framers, and was adopted\nby the states.\n\nAccording to Mr. Webster, then, Congress was under no obligation, and\nhad no power, to make a law providing for trial by jury, _except in\ncriminal prosecutions_, until _after_ the seventh article of amendment\nhad been ratified; for if they had any such power, or were under any\nsuch obligation, it must be by virtue of some clause or sentence in the\nconstitution, _having a \u201cbearing upon the subject.\u201d_\n\nNow, the first session of Congress commenced March 4th, 1789, but this\nseventh article of amendment was not ratified, and did not become a\npart of the constitution, according to Hickey, (Hickey\u2019s Const. p. 36,)\nuntil December 15, 1791.\n\nUntil this time, therefore, according to Mr. Webster, the constitution\nhad secured no right to a trial by jury, except in the case of\n_criminal prosecutions_; because, until this time, there was no clause\nor sentence in it \u201chaving the least bearing on the subject\u201d of jury\ntrials in any but criminal cases.\n\nYet, on the 24th of September, 1789, _and more than two years previous\nto the adoption of the seventh amendment_, (by which alone, according\nto Mr. Webster, they had any power to act in the premises,) Congress\ndid pass the judiciary act; by the ninth, twelfth, and thirteenth\nsections of which it is provided, that the trial of issues in fact, in\nthe district courts, in the circuit courts, and in the supreme court,\nshall, with certain exceptions, be by jury.\n\nThe act also empowers the courts to grant new trials \u201cfor reasons for\nwhich new trials have usually been granted in the courts of law.\u201d In\nwhat courts of law? Did it not mean the courts in Westminster Hall,\nand those in this country formed after that ancestral model? And does\nnot this show beyond question or cavil, that the principle of the jury\ntrial, _in civil cases_, was incorporated into the constitution of the\nUnited States, originally; and that it was universally understood to\nbe so by its framers, and by their contemporaries, the members of the\nfirst Congress?\n\nFrom the constitution alone, then, and not from any power above it, or\noutside of it, did Congress derive its power, on the 24th of September,\n1789, and more than two years before the seventh amendment was adopted,\nto pass the judiciary act, and to fill it full of the fact and the\ndoctrine of jury trials in civil cases. And if Congress, at that time,\nhad legislated on the subject of fugitive slaves, would it not have had\nthe same power to provide the trial by jury, to determine the question,\nslave or free, as it had to provide for this mode of trial in other\ncases?\n\nAll the state conventions for adopting the constitution, whose\ndebates are preserved, and all the leading men who figured in them,\nheld,--contrary to Mr. Webster,--that the third article in the\nconstitution, providing for courts, carried jury trials in civil cases\nwith it. Mr. Marshall, afterwards Chief Justice Marshall, said in the\nVirginia convention, \u201cDoes the word _court_, [in the constitution,]\nonly mean the judges? Does not the determination of a jury necessarily\nlead to the judgment of the court? Is there any thing which gives the\njudges exclusive jurisdiction of matters of fact? What is the object\nof a jury trial? To inform the court of the facts. When a court has\ncognizance of facts, does it not follow that they can make inquiry by a\njury? It is impossible to be otherwise.\u201d--3 _Elliott\u2019s Debates_, 506.\n\nThe third article in the Virginia bill of rights was as follows:--\n\n \u201cIn controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and\n man, the ancient trial by jury is preferable to any other, and ought\n to be held sacred.\u201d\n\nThis article being read in the convention, Judge Marshall said _the\ntrial by jury was as well secured by the United States constitution, as\nby the Virginia bill of rights_.--Ib. 524. He said this in reference to\ncivil cases.\n\nIn the Massachusetts convention, it was said, without a doubt\u2019s being\nexpressed from any quarter, that \u201cthe word _court_ does not, either by\npopular or technical construction, exclude the use of a jury to try\nfacts. When people in common language talk of a trial at the court of\ncommon pleas, or the supreme judicial court, do they not include all\nthe branches and members of such courts, the jurors as well as the\njudges? They certainly do, whether they mention the jurors expressly or\nnot. Our state legislators have construed the word court in the same\nway.\u201d--2 _Elliott\u2019s Debates_, 127.\n\nSuch was the doctrine maintained by the leading minds of the state\nconventions; by Christopher Gore, in Massachusetts; by Judge Wilson,\nand Chief Justice McKean, in Pennsylvania; by Chief Justice Marshall,\nJudge Pendleton, and Mr. Madison, in Virginia; by Judge Iredell, in\nNorth Carolina, and many other distinguished names.\n\nIn the Virginia convention, objection was made to the constitution\nbecause it did not _expressly_ secure to the accused the privilege\nof challenging or excepting to jurors in criminal cases. But Mr.\nPendleton, the President of the convention, and for so many years\nafterwards the highest judicial officer in the state, replied: \u201cWhen\nthe constitution says that the trial shall be by jury, does it not say\nthat every incident will go along with it?\u201d--3 _Elliott\u2019s Debates_, 497.\n\nSo when the constitution provided for \u201ccourts,\u201d and defined their\njurisdiction, it clearly contemplated the trial by jury, in regard\nto all such rights of the citizen as had been usually, theretofore,\ntried by a jury. Congress, indeed, might fail to perform its duty; but\nin such case, no provisions of the constitution, however express and\nperemptory, would secure the rights of the people.\n\nIt is perfectly well known to every student of the constitution, that\nthe only reason why that instrument did not make _express_ provision\nfor the trial by jury, in civil cases, was the difficulty of running\nthe dividing line between the many cases that should be so tried, and\nthe few that should not. All were agreed that ninety-nine per cent. of\nall civil cases should be tried by jury; but they could not agree upon\nthe classes of cases from which the remaining one per cent. should be\ntaken.\n\nIn this connection, it is worth while to notice the heading or preamble\nof the joint resolutions for submitting certain proposed amendments of\nthe constitution to the states, among which was the seventh. It is as\nfollows:--\n\n \u201cThe conventions of a number of the states having at the time of their\n adopting the constitution expressed a desire, in order to prevent\n misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory or\n restrictive clauses should be added; and as the extending the ground\n of public confidence in the government will best insure the beneficent\n ends of its institution, RESOLVED,\u201d &c.\n\nFrom this it appears that the first Congress only proposed to submit\ncertain \u201c_further declaratory and restrictive clauses_,\u201d which were \u201cto\nprevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers.\u201d This heading or title,\nof course, does not enlarge or limit the meaning of the amendments;\nbut it shows the view which their authors had of their scope and\nintendment. And what is the seventh amendment but a \u201cdeclaratory and\nrestrictive clause,\u201d securing the trial by jury, in cases at common\nlaw, \u201cwhere the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars,\u201d and\nabandoning it where the value is less?\n\nThe phraseology of the amendment is full of significance: \u201cThe right\nof trial by jury shall be preserved.\u201d Not created, but preserved. Not\ninstituted _de novo_, but continued. Will Mr. Webster tell me, how a\nright can be _preserved_, which does not already _exist_?\n\nIn speaking of the trial by jury, in criminal cases, Judge Story uses\nthe same word. He says it was \u201cpreserved.\u201d In neither class of cases,\ncivil or criminal, was it ever abandoned or lost, through the fault of\nthe constitution. If not always enjoyed by the citizen, it has been\nthrough the dereliction of Congress in not passing the requisite laws.\n\nThe great men who submitted this seventh amendment to the states,\ntreated the trial by jury, in civil cases, as a then subsisting\nconstitutional right. They passed a law to put the practical enjoyment\nof this right into the hands of the people, well knowing that there\nis scarcely a right which we hold under the constitution which we can\nbeneficially possess or use, without the intervention of some law, as\nits channel or medium.\n\nSuppose this seventh amendment had never been adopted, on what ground\nwould the trial by jury, in civil cases, have rested up to the present\nday? Could it have been taken from us all, in all cases except criminal\nones, by any corrupt Congress?\n\nIn asserting, therefore, that, besides the references he has made,\nthere is not another \u201cclause or sentence in the constitution, _having\nthe least bearing on the subject_\u201d of jury trials, Mr. Webster is\ncontradicted by the members of the general convention, by the state\nconventions, by the senators and representatives, who passed the\njudiciary act, by President Washington who signed it, and by all the\njudges who administered that act until the seventh amendment was\nadopted.\n\nII. _Where it is the duty of Congress to provide for trial by jury._\n\nBut another of Mr. Webster\u2019s assertions is still more extraordinary. He\nsays \u201cnothing is more false than that such jury trial, [a trial by jury\nfor an alleged slave, or for a freeman claimed as a slave,] is demanded\nby the constitution, either in its letter or in its spirit.\u201d\n\nI make a preliminary remark upon the grossness of the error embodied in\nthe form of this proposition.\n\n\u201c_Nothing is more false_;\u201d that is, if I, or any one, had affirmed\nthat our constitution forbids trial by jury, in all cases, under\npenalty of death; or that it creates an hereditary despotism; or that\nit establishes the Catholic religion, with the accompaniment of an\ninquisition for each state; or that it does all these things together;\nit would not be more \u201c_false_\u201d to the \u201c_spirit_\u201d of the constitution,\nthan to say that it demands the trial by jury, when a man who is seized\nas a slave, but who asserts that he is free, invokes its protection.\n\nBut this pertains to the _form_ only of his assertion, and is\nimmaterial to the argument. I proceed to inquire whether its substance\nbe not as indefensible as its form.\n\nIn another part of Mr. Webster\u2019s letter, he says, that he sees \u201cno\nobjection to the provisions of the law\u201d of 1793. Of course; for he sees\nno objection to Mr. Butler\u2019s bill, and its amendments; but prefers them\nto Mr. Seward\u2019s. And he now says, there is nothing in the letter or in\nthe \u201cspirit\u201d of the constitution, which demands the jury trial for an\nalleged slave, or for a freeman captured and about to be carried away\nas a slave.\n\nFeeble and humble as I am, great and formidable as he is, I join issue\nwith him on this momentous question, and put myself upon the country.\n\nOur constitution, as the present generation has always been taught,\nyearns towards liberty and the rights of man. The trial by jury, in the\nimportant cases of life, liberty, and property, is essential to these\nrights. The two, therefore, have such close affinity for each other, as\nto render it highly probable, if not morally certain, that the framers\nof the former would make provision for the latter; that they would lay\nhold of it, as by a law of instinct, to carry out their beneficent\npurposes. The trial by jury was necessary to the vitality of the\nconstitution; and, I think, it would not be too strong an expression to\nsay that the constitution, as it came from the hands of its founders,\nnecessitated the trial by jury.\n\nThe object for which the constitution was framed, as set forth in\nits preamble,--namely, to \u201cestablish justice,\u201d \u201cpromote the general\nwelfare,\u201d and \u201csecure the blessings of liberty,\u201d to the people,--could\nnever be accomplished without the trial by jury. The preamble is not\nappealed to as a source of power; but it touches, as by the finger,\nthe objects which it contemplated; it suggests the means by which its\nbeneficent purposes were to be fulfilled, and it indicates the rules of\ninterpretation by which all its provisions are to be expounded.\n\nAnd not only the objects for which the constitution professes to exist,\nbut historical facts from the time of Magna Charta, and before that\ntime; the practice of the English and of our Colonial and Provincial\ncourts before the revolution and during the confederacy;--in fine, all\nanalogies and tendencies of constitutional law, and whatever belongs to\nideas of freedom, conspire to force the expectation upon us, that, in\na matter of such vast concernment as the life-long liberty or bondage\nof a man and his offspring, it has _not_ left us without the right of\ntrial by jury.\n\nThe very first law \u201cfor the general good of the colony of New\nPlymouth,\u201d (1623,) was, \u201cthat all criminal acts, and also all matters\nof _trespasses_ and DEBTS, between man and man, should be tried by the\nverdict of twelve honest men.\u201d\n\nIn that fearful array of crimes which the Declaration of Independence\ncharges home upon the king of Great Britain, that sublime instrument\nenumerates the following as among the most flagitious: \u201cFor depriving\nus, in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury,\u201d and \u201cfor\nprotecting his troops, _by a mock trial_, from punishment for any\nmurders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states.\u201d\n\nAccording to Blackstone, the right to a trial by jury had been held,\n\u201ctime out of mind,\u201d to be the birthright of Englishmen. The 29th\nchapter of the Great Charter guarantied this right, not only in cases\nof liberty, life, and limb, but in cases of property, real and personal.\n\nIn England, it has become a traditional saying, and drops from the\ncommon tongue, that the great object of king, lords, and commons, is to\nget twelve men into the jury box.\n\nJudge Story says, \u201cWhen our more immediate ancestors removed to\nAmerica, they brought this great privilege with them, _as their\nbirthright and inheritance_, as a part of that admirable common law\nwhich had fenced round, and interposed barriers on every side, against\nthe approaches of arbitrary power. It is now incorporated into all\nour state constitutions, as a fundamental right; and the constitution\nof the United States would have been justly obnoxious to the most\nconclusive objection, if it had not recognized and confirmed it in the\nmost solemn terms.\u201d--3 _Com._ 652, 3.\n\nIs it conceivable, then, that the heroes and sages of the revolution,\nwho rose in resistance to the most formidable power on earth; so many\nof whom rose against their own kindred in the mother country, because\nthey loved liberty better than father or mother, or brother or sister,\nand who endured the privations and horrors of a seven years\u2019 war;--is\nit conceivable, I say, that, when they had achieved their independence,\nand there was no longer any earthly power to control them, they should\nhave framed a fundamental law, and should not have imbued that law\nwith the \u201c_spirit_\u201d of the trial by jury, as its breath of life? As\nBritish subjects, they were entitled to this trial. As Americans, did\nthey renounce it? Did they wage war for seven years in order to place\nthemselves in a worse condition than they had been placed in by their\n\u201ctyrant\u201d? Mr. Webster says they did. He charges this infinite folly and\nblindness upon them, singly and collectively, one and all.\n\nI will now fortify this historical view, by a reference to some\ndecisions of the supreme court which explain and define the meaning of\nthe seventh amendment.[10]\n\nWhat is the true meaning of those descriptive words, \u201csuits at common\nlaw\u201d? Has not Mr. Webster, relying on his high reputation, disposed\nof this matter a little too summarily? He says, \u201cThe constitution\ndeclares that in suits at common law, the trial by jury shall be\npreserved;\u201d but he adds, \u201cThe reclaiming of a fugitive slave is not a\nsuit at common law.\u201d\n\nBut the supreme court of the United States has furnished us with an\nauthoritative interpretation of the words of the constitution bearing\non this subject. In the case of _Cohens_ VS. _Virginia_, 6 Wheaton, R.\n407, they define what is meant by a \u201csuit.\u201d These are their words:--\n\n \u201cWhat is a _suit_? We understand it to be the prosecution, or pursuit,\n of some _claim_, demand, or request. In law language, it is the\n prosecution of some demand in a court of justice. \u2018The remedy for\n every species of wrong is,\u2019 says Judge Blackstone, \u2018the being put in\n possession of that right whereof the party injured is deprived,\u2019 The\n instruments whereby this remedy is obtained are a diversity of _suits_\n and actions, which are defined by the Mirror to be \u2018the lawful demand\n of one\u2019s right;\u2019 or, as Bracton and Fleta express it in the words of\n Justinian, \u2018_jus prosequendi in judicio quod alicui debetur_,\u2019--(the\n form of prosecuting in trial, or judgment, which is due to any one.)\n Blackstone then proceeds to describe every species of remedy by\n suit; and they are all cases where the party suing claims to obtain\n something to which he has a right.\n\n \u201cTo commence a suit is to demand something by the institution of\n process in a court of justice; and to prosecute the suit is, according\n to the common acceptation of language, to continue that demand.\u201d\n\nAccording to the supreme court, then, a _suit_ is the prosecution of\nsome _claim_, demand, or request. Now, the proceedings for a fugitive\nslave, according to the very letter of the constitution, are instituted\nto prosecute a _claim_. The person held to service or labor is to be\ndelivered up, \u201con _claim_ of the party to whom such service or labor\nmay be due.\u201d\n\nStill further, in a decision bearing directly on the right to a trial\nby jury, the supreme court have defined the term \u201ccommon law\u201d in\nspecial reference to its meaning in the amendment to the constitution,\nwhich secures this right \u201cin suits at common law.\u201d These are their\nwords:--\n\n \u201cIt is well known that in civil causes, in courts of equity and\n admiralty, juries do not intervene; and that courts of equity use the\n trial by jury only in extraordinary cases, to inform the conscience of\n the court. When, therefore, we find that the [7th] amendment requires\n that the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, in suits at common\n law, the natural conclusion is, that this distinction was present\n to the minds of the framers of the amendment. By _common law_ they\n meant what the constitution denominated in the third article \u2018law;\u2019\n not merely suits which the _common_ law recognized among its old and\n settled proceedings; but suits in which _legal_ rights were to be\n ascertained and determined, in contradistinction to those in which\n equitable rights alone were recognized, and equitable remedies were\n administered, or in which, as in the admiralty, a mixture of public\n law, and of maritime law and equity, was often found in the same suit.\n Probably there were few, if any, states in the Union, in which some\n new legal remedies, differing from the old common law forms, were not\n in use; but in which, however, the trial by jury intervened, and the\n general regulations in other respects were according to the course\n of the common law. Proceedings in cases of partition, and of foreign\n and domestic attachment, might be cited as examples variously adopted\n and modified. _In a just sense, the amendment, then, may well be\n construed to embrace all suits, which are not of equity or admiralty\n jurisdiction_, WHATEVER MAY BE THE PECULIAR FORM WHICH THEY MAY ASSUME\n TO SETTLE LEGAL RIGHTS.\u201d--_Parsons_ VS. _Bedford_, 3 _Peters\u2019s Rep._\n 456, 7.\n\nThe last sentence I have underscored. In this sentence, the supreme\ncourt plainly say, that, if the subject matter of the litigation, or\nthe object of the proceeding, be to determine a \u201clegal right\u201d which was\nformerly determined by a \u201csuit at common law,\u201d then such proceeding is\nembraced in the seventh amendment, and either party in interest has a\nright to the trial by jury. Now, is it not clear that any proceeding\nwhich determines whether a man owns himself, or is owned by another\nman, and which delivers one man into the custody of another, as his\nslave, or refuses so to deliver him, is, \u201cwhatever peculiar form it\nmay assume,\u201d a proceeding \u201cto settle a legal right,\u201d--the highest\nlegal right? It is not a right in equity, in admiralty, or under the\nmaritime law; but strictly and exclusively a _legal right_, and nothing\nelse. According to the doctrine of the supreme court, then, in the\nabove-cited case, the parties to such a proceeding have a right, under\nthe seventh amendment, to a trial by jury. At least, is not such the\n\u201c_spirit_\u201d of the amendment?\n\nBut there is another well-known fact, which gives pertinence and\nstringency to the above view. At common law, the writ _de homine\nreplegiando_,--the writ of personal replevin, or for replevying a\nman,--was an original writ; a writ which the party could sue out of\nright; one to be granted on motion, without showing cause, and which\nthe court of chancery could not supersede. It was, according to the\nvery language of our supreme court, recognized by the common law \u201camong\nits old and settled proceedings.\u201d The form of it is found in that great\narsenal of common law writs, the _Registrum Brevium_. A man, says\nComyn, may have a _homine replegiando_ for a negro; or for an Indian\nbrought by him into England and detained from him; or it may be brought\nby an infant against his testamentary guardian; _or by a villein\nagainst his lord_. (Dig., Title Imprisonment, L. 4.)\n\nIf it could be brought by a villein against his lord, then it was the\nvery writ for an alleged slave against an alleging owner. It was the\nmode provided by the common law for the determination of the _legal\nright_ asserted in a human being. I have always understood that, before\nthe revolution, and before the framing of our constitution, Comyn\u2019s\nDigest was a work of the highest authority. It must have been well\nknown to all the lawyers in the convention. Did they expect, then,\nthat when an alleged slave, or a known freeman, should be seized, that\nhe should be hurried into bondage without any right to this ancient\nmuniment of the subject\u2019s liberties?\n\nBut \u201cthe reclaiming of a fugitive slave,\u201d says Mr. Webster, \u201cis not a\nsuit at the common law.\u201d The proceedings provided for by the statute\nof 1793, to which he \u201csees no objection,\u201d have no analogy to the writ\n_de homine replegiando_. But can you destroy the right to a jury trial\nby changing the process? A sand-hiller from Georgia or North Carolina\ncannot come to Massachusetts and eject Mr. Webster from his Marshfield\nfarm without being compelled to submit the question of title to a\njury. But suppose Congress should say, in effect, that any one of the\nseventeen thousand postmasters in the United States might be brought\ninto Massachusetts, (and, among so numerous a body, it is no libel\nto say there are some reckless men,) and that the said sand-hiller\nmight go before the said imported postmaster, and after proof \u201cto\nhis satisfaction,\u201d \u201ceither by oral testimony or by affidavit,\u201d--an\naffidavit, be it remembered, taken any where in the United\nStates,--then the claimant shall be put into immediate possession of\nthe said farm, with a right to recover costs; and suppose Mr. Webster\nshould spurn the authority of this illegitimate court, and demand an\nobservance of the ancient forms of law, and a trial by jury under the\nseventh amendment; then the claimant has only to borrow Mr. Webster\u2019s\nown words, and say, \u201cThis is not a suit at the common law:\u201d--suppose\nall this, I say, and I would then ask if such a proceeding would be\nsatisfactory to the last-named gentleman? The common sense of mankind\nis authority good enough to answer such a question; but we have high\nlegal authority in addition.\n\nIn _Baker_ VS. _Riddle_, Mr. Justice Baldwin, one of the judges of the\nsupreme court of the United States, held that it was not in the power\nof Congress to take away the right of trial by jury, secured by the\nseventh amendment, either,--\u201c1. By an organization of the courts in\nsuch a manner as not to secure it to suitors;\u201d or,--\u201c2. By authorizing\nthe courts to exercise, or their assumption of, equity or admiralty\njurisdiction over cases at law.\u201d \u201cThis amendment,\u201d says he, \u201cpreserves\nthe right of jury trial against any infringement by any department of\nthe government.\u201d--_Baldwin\u2019s Rep._ 404.\n\nNow, what was Mr. Butler\u2019s bill but \u201ca new organization of the courts,\u201d\nor, rather, a new creation of some twenty thousand courts, \u201cin such a\nmanner as not to secure [the right of trial by jury] to suitors?\u201d It\nwas, indeed, a violation of both of the principles laid down by Judge\nBaldwin. It was the creation of tribunals unknown to the common law,\nand authorizing those tribunals to decide upon rights not belonging to\neither \u201cequity or admiralty jurisdiction.\u201d\n\nIn this connection, I will refer to the case of _Lee_ VS. _Lee_, 8\n_Peters\u2019s Rep._ 44.\n\nBy act of Congress of April 2, 1816, it was declared that no cause\nshould be removed from the circuit court of the District of Columbia\nto the supreme court by appeal or writ of error, \u201cunless the matter\nin dispute shall be of the value of one thousand dollars or upwards.\u201d\nThe plaintiffs in error were claimed as slaves. Their petition for\nfreedom in the court below had been decided against them; and from this\ndecision they appealed. The defendant in error took the objection that\nthey,--their bodies and souls,--were not worth one thousand dollars,\nand therefore that they had no right to appeal. But the court said,--\n\n \u201cThe matter in dispute, in this case, is the freedom of the\n petitioners. The judgment of the court below is against their claims\n to freedom; the matter in dispute is, therefore, to the plaintiffs\n in error, the value of their freedom, _and this is not susceptible\n of a pecuniary valuation_. Had the judgment been in favor of the\n petitioners, and the writ of error brought by the party claiming to be\n the owner, the value of the slaves as _property_ would have been the\n matter in dispute, and affidavits might be admitted to ascertain such\n value. But affidavits estimating the value of freedom are entirely\n inadmissible; and no doubt is entertained of the jurisdiction of the\n court.\u201d\n\nNow, if the supreme court of the United States, in construing a law,\nfelt constrained by their oaths to hold the freedom of a man,--of any\nman, though he might be a drivelling idiot, or stretched upon his\ndeath bed, with only another hour to breathe,--to be worth more than a\nthousand dollars, how can a senator of the United States say, that in\npassing a law, under which human liberty may be retained or lost, he is\nnot bound at least by the \u201c_spirit_\u201d of the constitution, if not by its\nletter, to hold that human liberty to be of greater value than twenty\ndollars, and therefore to provide the trial by jury for its protection?\nWhat can prove more strikingly that Mr. Webster violates the whole\n\u201cspirit\u201d of the constitution, when the framers and ratifiers of this\namendment covenanted for and decreed the trial by jury, for such a\npaltry sum of money; and when the judges of the supreme court held\nhuman liberty to be worth more than any nameable sum of money, while\nhe regards it as a thing to be disposed of by any corrupt postmaster,\nwhich any corrupt administration may corruptly appoint. Yet he says,\n\u201cNothing can be more false than that a jury trial is demanded in cases\nof this kind by the constitution, either in its letter, _or in its\nspirit_.\u201d\n\nI wish I could find, or felt at liberty to coin some milder word;\nbut for want of a better, I must say that Mr. Webster seems to\nme, throughout this whole matter, to _dogmatize_. He makes strong\nassertions without offering even weak reasons. Of this character was\nhis annunciation of the discovery of a new law,--\u201cthe law of physical\ngeography,\u201d--which was to suspend moral agency, and take from man his\npower to commit crime against his brother; as though in ascending\nhill-sides, freedom and slavery lie in different atmospherical strata,\nand are bounded by each other impassably; as though there were any\nmountain so \u201cexceeding high,\u201d to whose top even Jesus Christ could go,\nthat Satan could not go there to tempt him. This does not strike the\ncommon mind like a true discovery;--like the law of gravitation, for\ninstance, discovered by Newton, or the existence of the planet Neptune,\nby Leverrier. It is rather like that earliest pretended discovery on\nrecord, which was designed to seduce, and did seduce, the first parents\nof us all. _Ye may eat of the forbidden tree, for ye shall_ NOT _surely\ndie_. So Mr. Webster says, Let slaves be driven in coffles, or carried\nin ships\u2019 holds to the new territories; they cannot live there. Will\nnot the results of the two experiments bear a lively analogy to each\nother, and be likely to reflect similar credit upon their authors?\n\nSo, too, when he tore some of the brightest pages from the New\nTestament, by proclaiming that \u201cthere is to be found no injunction\nagainst that relation [of slavery] between man and man, in the\nteachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ, or of any of his apostles\u201d!\nUpon how many Christian hearts did this sentiment fall like an anathema\nagainst all truth. He does not say any _express_ injunction, but \u201cno\ninjunction;\u201d--none of any kind. No _positive_ injunction against\nslavery in the New Testament!--a book designed to regulate our life\nand condition for two worlds; yet, altogether, not so large as many a\ncongressional report; less voluminous than the ordinances of many of\nour city governments;--a book, therefore, which, from the necessity\nof the case, must deal with great and immortal principles, and could\nnot descend into specification and detail;--and because such a book\nas this contains no _express_ injunction against slavery, therefore\nslavery is not forbidden by it, but has the implied approval of its\nsilence! Surely, never was there a more sinister, unsound, unchristian\nargument uttered by infidel or pagan. Is there any _express_ injunction\n\u201cin the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ, or of any of his\napostles,\u201d commanding us to declare the African slave trade piracy?\nIs there any _express_ injunction \u201cin the teachings of the gospel of\nJesus Christ, or of any of his apostles,\u201d against cannibalism? Do they\nany where say, \u201cYe shall not eat one another?\u201d Yet what enormity and\nflagitiousness would it be to infer, that, therefore, men and women\nmay turn ogres and ogresses, and eat human flesh as they do mutton and\nsirloin. The inference in the latter case is every whit as warrantable\nand as sound, as in the former. Yet I consider that this theological\nargument does not violate the \u201cspirit\u201d of the gospel, any more than\nhis constitutional argument violates the \u201cspirit\u201d of the constitution.\nJohn Wesley, who had lived amid slavery, denominates it the \u201csum of all\nvillanies,\u201d and if Christ came into this world and left it, without\npermeating and saturating all his teachings with injunctions against\nthe injustice, cruelty, pride, avarice, lust, love of domination, and\nlove of adulation, which are the inseparable accompaniments of slavery,\nthen I think the Christian world will cry out, that so far as this life\nis concerned, his mission was substantially fruitless.\n\n    \u201cO, star-eyed Science! hast thou wandered there,\n    To bring us back these tidings of despair?\u201d\n\nSo, if the constitution of the United States contains not even any\n_implied_ security for the liberty of all the colored population in\nthe free states and territories, and for the trial by jury as the only\nadequate means of securing that liberty, then would it not be more\ncreditable to its framers never to have put their signatures to it?\n\nLet me here compare the relative value of life or property on the one\nside, with liberty on the other, and see what inference must be drawn\nin favor of affording as great a protection to the latter as to the\nformer.\n\nThe fifth article of amendment declares that \u201cno person shall be\ndeprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.\u201d\nThe commentators say that these words, \u201cdue process of law,\u201d are the\nequivalent of the phrase \u201cthe law of the land,\u201d in the 29th chapter of\nMagna Charta; and hence that \u201cthis clause in effect affirms the right\nof trial according to the process and proceedings of the common law;\u201d\nthat is, by jury. (See Story\u2019s Comm. 661; 2 Inst. 50, 51; 2 Kent\u2019s\nComm. 10; 1 Tucker\u2019s Black. App. 304.)\n\nNow, consider that the general right of trial by jury, in cases of\n_life_, was expressly secured by the constitution as originally\nadopted; that, somewhat more than three years afterwards, the same\nright was expressly secured for _property_, in suits at common law,\nwhenever the value in controversy should exceed twenty dollars; and\nthen say whether there is not the strongest implication in favor of\nthe same right, in cases of human liberty, which is so much more\nprecious than life and property combined. I do not here say it is an\nimplication that binds the courts in administering a law. That is\nnot the point under discussion. But is it not an implication that\nbinds the _legislator_, so that when legislating on the subject, he\ncannot consciously and wilfully abandon it without infidelity to his\noath? I do not believe that many men from the free states will ever\nbe found in Congress who will not take this view of the subject.\nIndeed, not a few of the best lawyers and jurists have held that the\nimplication binds the courts; and therefore that the statute of 1793 is\nunconstitutional.[11]\n\nMr. Webster treats the two cases, of fugitives from justice and\nfugitives from service, alike; although one can almost adopt his own\nlanguage, and say that \u201cnothing is more false\u201d than that they are\nalike. In regard to the first class, the constitution says, a person\n\u201c_charged_\u201d with treason, &c.; but in regard to the second class, it\nsays no person \u201c_held_,\u201d &c.\n\nAccording to the obvious intent of this language, the alleged fugitive\nmust be _proved_ to be _held_, _bound_, _obligated_. It is not enough\nthat he be _charged_ to be \u201cheld\u201d to service, though it is enough that\na man be \u201c_charged_\u201d with crime. To bring the first case within the\nlegal category of the second, its terms should be, \u201ca person _guilty_\nof treason,\u201d &c., shall be delivered up. Were such the phraseology,\nwould any one doubt that proof of guilt should precede delivery, and\nthat there could be no other foundation for it?\n\nMr. Webster says, \u201cperhaps the only insuperable difficulty\u201d to a trial\nby a jury, \u201chas been created by the states themselves.\u201d Suppose this\nto be so, I would ask whose duty is it to act first,--that of Congress\nto provide the trial, or that of the states to remove the impediment?\nShall the states repeal their laws first, and leave the liberty of\nthe citizens in jeopardy; or shall not Congress legislate first, and\nsecure that liberty? Which is of the greater importance, that the\nowner should recover his slave, or that the citizen should retain his\nfreedom? I answer according to the language which the criminal law uses\nrespecting guilt and innocence, that it is better that nine hundred and\nninety-nine, that is, an indefinite number of slaves should escape,\nthan that one free man should be delivered into bondage.\n\nBesides, I think no state legislated on the subject for the protection\nof its own citizens, until 1842. This was after Congress had neglected,\nfor more than fifty years, to do its duty. Why, then, should Mr.\nWebster cast the blame upon the states which forbore for more than\nfifty years to act protectively for themselves, when Congress, of which\nhe had been a leading member for nearly forty years, had endangered,\ninstead of securing, the liberty of their citizens? When he said that\n\u201cevery member of every northern legislature is bound by oath to support\nthe constitution of the United States,\u201d why did not the retort suddenly\nrise to his mind that _he_ was bound by oath not less than they; and\nthat his oath embraced the men that owned freedom, not less than the\nmen that owned slaves? Besides, he charges only a _part_ of the free\nstates with being guilty of unjust legislation. Shall the innocent\nstates suffer because of the others\u2019 offence? Rather shall not Congress\nfirst supply the means of protection to the citizens of all?\n\nIt seems to me, too, that the fourth amendment has an important\n\u201c_bearing upon the subject_,\u201d because it shows that the master-thought\nof our fathers, in forming the constitution, was to secure the\nliberties of the citizen. It provides against \u201cunreasonable seizures\u201d\nof \u201cpersons.\u201d I suppose the main idea of this amendment was to secure\nthe citizen against \u201cunreasonable seizure,\u201d even in cases where he\nshould afterwards, and at _some time_, be brought to trial according\nto the forms of the common law. But what \u201cseizure\u201d can be more\n\u201cunreasonable,\u201d than one whose object is, not an ultimate trial, but\nbondage forever, without trial? Can mortal imagination conceive of\nany seizure less entitled than this to be called \u201creasonable?\u201d With\nwhat indignation did our fathers frown because they were transported\nbeyond seas _to be tried_; yet, by our present law, and by the law\nwhich Mr. Webster promises to support, a free man may be transported,\nif not beyond seas, at least beyond lands, and beyond states, _not\nto be tried_, but to be held in slavery forever without trial. If a\nfree citizen of Massachusetts should be seized and plunged into a\nMassachusetts prison, to be kept there for life; and his children,\nas a consequence of his fate, were put into the same, or into other\nprisons, as fast as they were born, to be also kept for life; and such\nwas the original object and avowed purpose of the seizure, would not\nthis conflict a little with the \u201c_spirit_\u201d of the fourth amendment?\nAnd does this proceeding conflict with this \u201c_spirit_\u201d any the less,\nbecause the prison is a southern rice swamp, or cotton field, where the\nnearest door or outlet of escape is more than a hundred miles from the\nspot of confinement? In common law actions, trover, detinue, replevin,\n&c., &c., the trial is to be in the vicinage, except there is some\noverpowering reason for changing the venue, or place of trial. But here\nis a transfer of the party, not for a trial, but for evading a trial.\n\nI submit, then, to the public, that here are three provisions of the\nconstitution, each one of which does have \u201c_a bearing on the subject_.\u201d\nEach strengthens the other. They form a triple implication, if not a\n_trinoda necessitas_, which no man, however powerful he may be, can\nbreak.\n\nThe argument which the lawyers call _ab inconvenienti_,--the argument\nfrom inconvenience,--has been pressed into the service of the\nslaveholder to endanger the liberties of the citizen. I answer, there\nare two sides to this argument; nor was it wise in the slaveholder,\nor his northern friends, to suggest it. It seems to me quite as\n_inconvenient_ for a free man to lose his liberty, as for a slaveholder\nto lose his slave. If a southern man sues a northern one for the value\nof a bale of cotton or a barrel of rice, must not the plaintiff await\nthe next term of the court before he can enter his action, abide by\nthe rules of the court respecting continuances, and submit to the\norder of business in taking his turn before a jury? To obviate this\ninconvenience, has any legislature or any court ever proposed to set\naside or annul, at once, all the securities by which we hold property\nand life? And how stands the question respecting evidence or proof?\nIf difficult for a slave claimant, from Texas, to prove title to his\nslave in Massachusetts, how infinitely more difficult for a citizen of\nMassachusetts to prove title to himself in Texas. But Mr. Webster says\nthere are independent courts at the south, \u201calways open and ready to\nreceive and decide upon petitions or applications for freedom.\u201d Suppose\nthis to be true; how is a man or a woman, whose master knows that he or\nshe is free, to get to the courts? Mr. Webster seems to think that as\nsoon as a kidnapping slave dealer shall transport his human prey to the\nsouth, he will at once take him to, or allow him to go before a court\nof justice, or will sell him to some brother Samaritan who will do so.\nDoes not every body know that any man, who is capable of the enormous\nguilt of seizing or buying a freeman, will make it impossible for that\nfreeman to regain his birthright?\n\nMr. Webster says, persuasively, that the alleged slave \u201cis only\nremitted, for inquiry into his rights, to the state from which he\nfled.\u201d But suppose he had never \u201cfled,\u201d but was demeaning himself as\na peaceable citizen, under the solemnly pledged protection of the\ngovernment, on the soil where he was born! This is the false idea that\nunderlies the whole of Mr. Webster\u2019s seductive letter, that under such\na bill as Mr. Butler\u2019s, nobody but a slave would ever be arrested.\n\nI have no doubt that what Mr. Webster says about southern courts being\n\u201cfair and upright,\u201d is very generally and extensively true; but I have\nhad a little personal knowledge of southern courts, and I have no\nhesitation in saying that there has been one, at least, before which,\nif a slave were suing for his freedom, and any popular clamor against\nhim should exist, he would have no more hope of obtaining his liberty\nthrough the \u201cfairness\u201d of the court, than, if thrown overboard in the\nmiddle of the Atlantic ocean, he would have of saving his life by\nswimming ashore.\n\nMr. Webster holds Massachusetts up to the ridicule of the world,\nbecause, as he says, she \u201cgrows fervid on Pennsylvania wrongs;\u201d and he\nhas deemed it his duty to inquire how many seizures of fugitive slaves\nhave occurred in New England within our time. Is this the Christian\nstandard by which to estimate the evil of encroachments upon the most\nsacred rights of men? If I repose in contentment and indifference,\nbecause my own section, or state, or county, is as yet but a partial\nsufferer, why should I not continue contented and indifferent while\nI myself am safe? In providing for the liberties of the citizen,\nunder a common government, I think Massachusetts worthy of all honor\nand not of ridicule, because she does \u201cgrow fervid on Pennsylvania\nwrongs,\u201d and on the wrongs of an entire race, whether in Pennsylvania\nor California, or any where within the boundaries of our own country.\nI see no reason why my sympathies as a man, or the obligations of my\noath as an officer, in regard to the nearer or the remoter states,\nshould be inversely as the squares of the distances. Even with regard\nto foreign countries, did Mr. Webster think so, in those better days,\nwhen his eloquent appeal for oppressed and bleeding Greece roused the\nnation, like the voice of a clarion. Did Mr. Webster deem it necessary\nto make inquisitions through all the New England States, to learn how\nmany Hungarian patriots they had seen shot at the tap of drum, or how\nmany noble Hungarian women had been stripped and whipped in their\nmarket places, before he thrilled the heart of the nation at the\nwrongs of Kossuth and his compatriots, and invoked the execrations of\nthe world upon the Austrian and Russian despots? I see no difference\nbetween these cases, which is not in favor of our _home interests_,\nof our own _domestic rights_, except the difference of their bearings\nupon partisan politics and presidential rivalries. Mr. Webster quotes\nand commends Mr. Bissell, who said that those southern states which\nhad suffered the least from loss of slaves, made the greatest clamor.\nThat statement of a fact was well put by Mr. Bissell; but was it well\napplied by Mr. Webster? In the statement, it was a question as to\nthe loss of property. In the application, it is a question as to the\nloss of liberty. The latter is not, therefore, the \u201ccounterpart\u201d of\nthe former. Blindness to the distinction between the value and the\n_principle_ of property, and the value and the _principle_ of liberty,\ncould alone have permitted the comparison.\n\nBut I have extended this communication greatly beyond my original\npurpose. Several other topics contained in Mr. Webster\u2019s speech, or\ngrowing out of what has since happened in relation to it, and hardly\nless important than those already considered, must await another\nopportunity for discussion; unless, indeed, some disposal of the\nquestion shall render further discussion unnecessary.\n\nI am not unmindful of the position in which I stand. I am not unaware\nthat circumstances have placed me in an antagonist relation to a man\nwhose vast powers of intellect the world has long so vividly enjoyed\nand so profoundly admired. I well know that a _personal_ contest\nbetween us seems unequal, far more than did the impending combat\nbetween the Hebrew stripling and that champion of the Philistines who\nhad a helmet of brass upon his head, and greaves of brass upon his\nlegs, and the staff of whose spear was like a weaver\u2019s beam. But\nthe contest is not between _us_. It is between truth and error; and\njust so certain as the spirit of Good will prevail over the spirit of\nEvil, just so certain will Truth ultimately triumph. In such a case as\nthis, there is one point of view in which Mr. Webster is a desirable\nantagonist; for the thick and far-beaming points of light which he has\nleft all along his former course of life, cannot fail to expose, to all\neyes but his own, the devious path into which he has now wandered.\n\n                                                            HORACE MANN.\n\n WASHINGTON, June 6, 1850.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSeveral editions of the preceding Letters having been exhausted,\nanother was printed, under date of July 8, 1850, with Notes.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[9] All my quotations from Mr. Webster are taken from the edition of\nhis speech which he dedicated to the \u201cPEOPLE OF MASSACHUSETTS,\u201d March\n18, 1850. Among the numerous readings which have appeared, I suppose\nthis to be the most authentic.\n\n[10] This argument may be found repeated and enlarged upon in a\nsubsequent part of the present volume, p. 409, _et seq._ It is retained\nhere only to preserve the logical and legal symmetry of the letter.\n\n[11] See an elaborate opinion of Chancellor Walworth, 14 Wend. 507,\n_Jack_ VS. _Martin_.\n\n\n\n\n                                 NOTES\n\n                       TO THE PRECEDING LETTERS.\n\n\nI had hoped not to be required to say more on the subject discussed\nin the above Letters; but, during the last week, Mr. Webster has\nissued, in a pamphlet form, a speech made by him in the Senate on\nthe 17th ult., accompanied by his letter, dated on the same day, to\nsome gentlemen on the Kennebec River. In this letter, Mr. Webster has\nreferred to me again; and I regret exceedingly to say, that he seems\nto have given himself full license to depart from all the rules of\ncourtesy belonging to a gentleman, and to disobey the obligations of\ntruth belonging to a man.\n\nThat I may not be supposed to make any over-statement respecting the\ncharacter of Mr. Webster\u2019s language towards me, as expressed in this\nletter, I quote a specimen or two from it.\n\n \u201cA pamphlet has been put into circulation,\u201d says he, referring to the\n first of the above two letters, \u201cin which it is said that my remark\n is \u2018undertaking to settle by mountains and rivers, and not by the Ten\n Commandments, the question of human duty,\u2019 \u2018Cease to transcribe,\u2019 it\n adds, \u2018upon the statute book what our wisest and best men believed to\n be the will of God, in regard to our worldly affairs, and the passions\n which we think appropriate to devils will soon take possession of\n society.\u2019\u201d He then adds, \u201cOne hardly knows which most to contemn, the\n nonsense or the dishonesty of such commentaries on another\u2019s words. I\n know no passion more appropriate to devils than the passion for gross\n misrepresentation and libel,\u201d &c., &c.\n\nThe angry and reproachful language, in which Mr. Webster has here\nindulged himself, releases me from all further obligation to treat\nhim with personal regard. Yet I do not mean to avail myself of this\nrelease. Under our present relations, however, I do feel at liberty to\nuse considerable plainness of speech.\n\n1. Let me first refer to a misrepresentation by Mr. Webster of a plain\nmatter of fact. In professing to quote, from his 7th of March speech,\na passage on which I had made a criticism, he alters the passage so\nas to evade the criticism, and then condemns me for making it. The\noriginal passage in his speech read as follows: \u201cI would not take pains\nto re\u00e4ffirm an ordinance of Nature, nor to re\u00ebnact the will of God.\u201d\nThis was the sentiment I criticized. It appears in these words in the\n_National Intelligencer_, in the _Washington Union_, in the _Republic_,\nin the _Globe_, and in the pamphlet edition of his speech, which he\ndedicated to the people of Massachusetts. But in the Kennebec letter,\nin order to elude the point of my criticism, he has interpolated a\nword into the sentence, which changes its whole meaning. Affirming\nthat he quotes himself, he says, \u201cI would not take pains USELESSLY to\nre\u00e4ffirm an ordinance of Nature, or to re\u00ebnact the will of God.\u201d By\nfoisting in the word which I have underscored, he changes the entire\ncharacter of the sentiment advanced. As now stated, nobody can dissent\nfrom it; for who would announce, in a distinct proposition, that he\nwould _uselessly_ do any thing? But, as originally stated, nobody can\nassent to it. This alteration of his language, after my criticism upon\nit was made, is not only unjust towards me, but it contains a latent\nconfession that he knew he was wrong, but thought this surreptitious\nchanging of his doctrine to be a less evil than a frank acknowledgment\nof his error. Had he truly quoted the original false sentiment, the\nworld would have seen that I was right; but, in his dilemma, he falsely\ninterpolated a true sentiment, not only to evade the force of my\ncriticism upon him, but to make occasion for an unfounded imputation\nagainst me.\n\nI shall not undertake to define or describe a proceeding like this in\nwords of my own. But I may be permitted, without discourtesy, to use\na sentiment advanced by himself, and leave its application to be made\nby its author. It is in the same connection that Mr. Webster makes the\nfollowing remark: \u201cI know no passion more appropriate to devils than\nthe passion for gross misrepresentation and libel.\u201d Can any mortal\nspecify a grosser instance of \u201cgross misrepresentation and libel\u201d\nthan when one of the parties to a public discussion has uttered an\nobnoxious sentiment, and when this sentiment has met with very general\nreprobation, and when, in the progress of the discussion, the guilty\nparty professes to restate the case, that he should then expunge the\nfalse sentiment he originally advanced, foist a trite and common-place\none in its stead, then apply the criticism made on the suppressed\nsentiment to the forged one, and proceed to condemn his critic for\n\u201cnonsense\u201d or \u201cdishonesty\u201d? Is it not as palpable a case of alteration,\nas to change the date of a note of hand in order to take it out of\nthe statute of limitations, or to obliterate the description of the\npremises in a deed, and put a more valuable estate in its place? This\nproceeding is worse, if possible, than the former \u201cmisrepresentation\nand libel\u201d of my argument and myself, contained in the Newburyport\nletter. But the subject is painful, and I leave it.\n\n2. Following up his attack upon me, Mr. Webster proceeds to say:\n\n \u201cIn classical times, there was a set of small but rapacious critics,\n denominated _captatores verborum_, who snatched and caught at\n particular expressions; expended their strength on the _disjecta\n membra_ of language; birds of rapine which preyed on words and\n syllables, and gorged themselves with feeding on the garbage of\n phrases, chopped, dislocated, and torn asunder by themselves, as flesh\n and limbs are by the claws of unclean birds.\u201d\n\nMay I most respectfully ask Mr. Webster on what authority he says there\nwas, \u201cin classical times,\u201d any such \u201cset\u201d of \u201csmall but rapacious\ncritics,\u201d as he here speaks of--or exemplifies? In my ignorance, I\nhave always supposed the \u201c_captator_\u201d of classical times, to be a kind\nof \u201cgenius\u201d the very opposite of what Mr. Webster describes. Horace,\nJuvenal, and Livy represent him as a selfish, sycophantic gift-seeker,\nor fortune-hunter; not a twister, torturer, or interpolator, even, of\nwords and phrases. If _captator_ meant a cavilling, cynical critic,\nthen _captatrix_ should mean a scold, a vixen, or virago; but its true\nmeaning was \u201ca fawning gossip,\u201d or \u201cmean flatterer.\u201d\n\nNo mistake could well be greater than that the old _captatores_\n\u201cexpended their strength on the _disjecta membra_ of language,\u201d or\n\u201cgorged themselves with the garbage of phrases, chopped, dislocated,\nand torn asunder, by themselves.\u201d On the contrary, they were \u201cgentle as\na sucking dove.\u201d The accompanying words descriptive of the \u201c_captator_\u201d\nwere not _torve_, _ringi_, and so forth; but _collide_, _blande_, or\n_blandicule_. There was nothing like the harpy about them, as Mr.\nWebster seems to suppose, in this remarkable description of his, which\nis as rhetorically unsavory as it is classically untrue.\n\nSo far from there being any \u201cset\u201d of critics, in classic times,\ndenominated and known as _captatores verborum_, I doubt whether\neven the abstract noun \u201c_captatio_\u201d occurs half a dozen times, in\nall the classics, in connection with the genitive of his pretended\nappellation. He could hardly have made a greater or more ludicrous\nmistake. It is exceedingly to be regretted, after the numerous\ninstances we have lately had of Mr. Webster\u2019s bad logic, and bad\nhumanity, and bad discoveries of natural law, that he should now\noffend the classical taste of the country, and bring discredit upon\nthe New England colleges, by his bad Latin. This whole anti-classical\nparagraph about \u201c_disjecta membra_,\u201d and \u201cchopping,\u201d and \u201cgorging,\u201d and\n\u201cuncleanness,\u201d is an unclean conception of his own; not a pure but an\nimpure invention, and seems more epigastric than intellectual in its\norigin.[12]\n\n3. I will now give a specimen or two of Mr. Webster\u2019s errors in\ngeography, and of his false citation of authorities. It will then be\nseen that his geographical statements are worthy to be placed side by\nside with his classical. In the same letter, he says the extent of New\nMexico, north and south, on the line of the Rio Grande, \u201ccan hardly be\nless than a thousand miles.\u201d This makes a little more than _fourteen_\ndegrees of latitude. Now, as its northern boundary is in 42\u00b0, its\nsouthern must be as low as 28\u00b0. This is _four_ degrees below El Paso\ndel Norte. Yet Mr. Webster, on the 13th of June last, declared himself\nin favor of fixing the northern boundary of Texas at or near El Paso,\nand more than four degrees of latitude north of what he here says is\nthe southern boundary of New Mexico. He also supported that part of\nthe compromise bill which proposes to give Texas, not only these four\ndegrees of latitude, but millions of money also, for taking what, as he\nnow says, belongs to New Mexico and the United States. How can these\nviews stand together?\n\nIn his 7th of March speech, Mr. Webster declared it to be a natural\nimpossibility that African slavery could ever exist \u201cin California\nor New Mexico.\u201d (p. 42.) He now defines the southern boundary of New\nMexico. It can hardly be less, says he, than \u201ca thousand miles\u201d from\nthe forty-second degree of north latitude. This places it four degrees\nsouth of El Paso. He is in favor of that part of the bill which gives\nthese four degrees to Texas. According to him, therefore, should\nTexas get possession of these four degrees of what is now New Mexican\nterritory, slavery will exist, as far up as the old southern boundary\nline of New Mexico, by virtue of the laws of Texas, but beyond this\nline, although within the bounds of Texas, it will not exist, because\nforbidden by the \u201cwill of God.\u201d Hence the extraordinary spectacle will\nbe exhibited, of the existence of slavery coming plump up to the south\nside of an imaginary line, by the laws of Texas, while on the north\nside of the said imaginary line, its existence will be cut square off\nby the \u201cwill of God,\u201d although both sides are within the same political\njurisdiction. This will be a miracle, compared with which the supposed\nmiraculous preservation of the Jewish feature and complexion, for two\nthousand years, will be unworthy to be mentioned. It remains to be\nseen, however, whether this miracle will be vouchsafed to Mr. Webster,\nas a proof of the divine favor.\n\nOn the 5th of June, Mr. Webster voted against incorporating the\n\u201cProviso\u201d into the governments for New Mexico and Utah, because\nslavery was already prohibited there by \u201cAsiatic scenery\u201d and the law\nof \u201cphysical geography.\u201d On the next day, too, he voted against the\nfollowing amendment, offered by Mr. Walker: \u201cAnd that peon servitude\nis forever abolished and prohibited.\u201d Whether he so voted because this\nspecies of slavery, (which is an existing institution at the present\ntime,) was prohibited by \u201cscenery\u201d and \u201cgeography,\u201d does not appear.\n\nBut on the 17th of June, Mr. Webster, in the Senate, suggested a\nqualification of his doctrine as laid down on the 7th of March,\nviz., that \u201cevery foot of territory of the United States has a fixed\ncharacter for slavery.\u201d An uncertainty as to the boundary line between\nNew Mexico and Texas, gave rise to this qualification. \u201cLet me say to\ngentlemen,\u201d said Mr. Webster, \u201cthat if any portion which they or I do\nnot believe to be Texas, should be considered to become Texas, then, so\nfar, that qualification of my remark is applicable.\u201d (_Cong. Globe_,\n31st Cong., 1st session, p. 1239.) That is, if the compromise bill\nshould so establish the boundary line between New Mexico and Texas,\nas that \u201cany portion [of New Mexico] which they or I [other gentlemen\nor Mr. Webster,] do not believe to be Texas, should be considered to\nbecome Texas,\u201d then _as Texan territory_, it might lose its \u201cfixed\ncharacter,\u201d and become slave territory, notwithstanding the \u201cordinance\nof Nature\u201d and the \u201cwill of God,\u201d to the contrary. But, strange to\nsay, on this same 17th of June, the Kennebec letter was written, which\ncarries the southern boundary of Mexico, on the east side of the Rio\nGrande, four degrees below El Paso, and, of course, includes all that\nregion within New Mexico, and therefore within the \u201cordinance of\nNature\u201d and the \u201cwill of God!\u201d So that, after all, he acknowledges\nthat the \u201cordinance of Nature\u201d and the \u201cwill of God,\u201d as he expounds\nthem, may be overridden by the laws of Texas;--in which view he is\nundoubtedly right.\n\nBut his citation of authorities is among the most surprising of all\nhis aberrations from fact. He first quotes Major Gaines, who, as he\nsays, \u201ctraversed a part of this country during the Mexican war.\u201d By\n\u201cthis country,\u201d I suppose he means New Mexico. If he does not mean New\nMexico, then the citation has no relation to the subject. If he does\nmean New Mexico, then he asserts what is untrue. Major Gaines did not\ngo within four or five hundred miles of New Mexico during the war; and\nif the quotation from him was designed to create the belief that, in\nwhat Major Gaines said, he was speaking of New Mexico, it was as gross\nan imposition as could well be made.\n\nThe next citation is from Colonel Hardin. Two sentences are taken. I\ntranscribe the first with Mr. Webster\u2019s italics.\n\n _\u201cThe whole country is miserably watered; large districts have no\n water at all. The streams are small, and at great distances apart._\n One day we marched on the road from Monclova to Parras, _thirty-five\n miles, without water_; a pretty severe day\u2019s march for infantry.\u201d\n\nAnd what country does this describe?\n\n\u201cFrom Monclova to Parras, thirty-five miles\u201d! says Colonel Hardin. And\nwhere is Monclova? Away down south, in Coahuila, hundreds of miles from\nany part of New Mexico.\n\nI submit the following notes, one from the colonel of the regiment\nin which Mr. Gaines was a major; and the other from a major in the\nregiment of which Mr. Hardin was colonel. Both letters are from\ngentlemen who are now members of Congress.\n\n                                HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, June 27, 1850.\n\n SIR; In reply to your note of this date, I state that Major Gaines did\n not, during the Mexican war, travel through any part of New Mexico.\n Major Gaines entered Mexico at Camargo, on the Rio Grande; was engaged\n near Saltillo, until he was captured and taken to the city of Mexico;\n and thence he returned to the United States by the way of Vera Cruz.\n\n I am, sir, very respectfully, &c.,\n\n                                                      HUMPHREY MARSHALL.\n\n P.S. In reply to your verbal inquiry, whether Colonel Hardin was in\n New Mexico, I state, that Colonel Hardin was attached to General\n Wool\u2019s command, and passed from San Antonio de Bexar, by the Presidio\n de Rio Grande, Monclova, and Parras, to Saltillo; so that he did not\n enter New Mexico.\n\n                                                                   H. M.\n\n Hon. H. MANN.\n\n                                HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, June 28, 1850.\n\n HON. H. MANN. SIR; In reply to your note of this date, I have the\n honor to say, that I was an officer of the first regiment, Illinois\n volunteers, commanded by Colonel J.J. Hardin, during the Mexican war,\n and that during the time Colonel Hardin was in command of the regiment\n he was not in New Mexico. His nearest point to New Mexico was Monclova\n or Parras, which was several hundred miles distant. In my opinion,\n Colonel Hardin was never in New Mexico; he certainly was not in that\n country during the Mexican war.\n\n                                                           Respectfully,\n\n                                                       W. A. RICHARDSON.\n\nNow what possible excuse can be offered for these misleading citations?\nWhat information would be given of the soil of the Genesee valley of\nNew York, by proving the condition of the sands of Cape Cod?\n\nMr. Webster next quotes, for the second time, the letter of Hugh\nN. Smith, Esq. This letter, if taken by itself, would render it\nimprobable, in Mr. Smith\u2019s opinion, that slavery would go into New\nMexico; but it by no means proves the physical impossibility of its\nexistence there. But what different language has Mr. Smith since held\nin his address to his constituents in New Mexico itself? I will quote a\nfew passages from this address to show its general drift and intent.\n\n \u201cYour state, [New Mexico,] is threatened with dismemberment, and _what\n is yet more fatal, the introduction of slavery into its bosom_.\u201d (p.\n 1.)\n\n \u201cThe most formidable part of this combination against you is that\n which originates in the slave interest. It not only rallies against\n you the whole slaveholding south, but all the influence of selfish,\n venal, and ambitious men in the north, _looking to speculations in\n discredited bonds and land jobbing, or to the political honors which\n the combined vote of the south may promise_.\u201d (p. 2.)\n\n \u201cThe doctrine of the slaveholding states, in regard to their domestic\n institutions, is non-intervention; but with regard to yours, it is\n _instant intervention_, to set at nought the prohibition of slavery,\n which you brought with you into the Union,\u201d &c. _Ib._\n\n \u201cI am myself a native of the section, [Mr. Smith is a Kentuckian,]\n whose fate I deplore, and if my duty did not require, I would be the\n last to advert to the malady that preys upon its life.... The schemes\n of those who would bind you to the destiny of the slave states, render\n it necessary that your representative should be excluded from the\n halls of Congress.\u201d (p. 3.)\n\n \u201c_You are left prostrate, that Texas may dismember and divide New\n Mexico, and subject her to southern influence; that negro slavery\n may be introduced into the remnant of territory that may not be\n appropriated to Texas; and, finally, that the region thus secured to\n southern policy may become the stock on which to graft new conquests\n from Mexico._\u201d (p. 4.) [_These_ are Mr. Smith\u2019s italics.]\n\n \u201cThe first step in this process is to supplant the fundamental\n municipal institutions brought by New Mexico with her into the Union,\n by a territorial government, which, by omitting the inhibition against\n slavery in the Congressional act, failing to reserve that contained\n in the Mexican code, and preventing the people of the territory\n from legislating upon the subject of slavery, and from re\u00ebnacting\n the prohibitory clause, will unquestionably abolish all protections\n against that institution; and, indeed, more effectual legislation for\n the extension of slavery into New Mexico could not be enacted.\u201d (p. 5.)\n\n \u201cThe whole body of southern influence, now that mining is a mania,\n would combine to pour an immense colony of slaves into New Mexico.\n The consequence of this would be to level the whole population of\n New Mexico with the new caste brought into competition; and you,\n my Mexican fellow-citizens, who till your own soil with your own\n hands, would be compelled to fly your country, or be degraded from\n your equality of freemen, forfeiting your hopes of rising to the new\n elevation promised by your alliance with the great North American\n republic, and living only to witness the ruin of all that renders life\n desirable.\u201d (p. 6.)\n\nThis is what Mr. Smith says, when he writes home to his own people, who\nknow all about their own country, and its danger of being invaded by\nslavery.\n\nNow, let the reader suppose himself to have read from Mr. Smith\u2019s\naddress, as much more of the same kind as the above, and then say how\nfar his evidence goes to sustain Mr. Webster\u2019s discovery, that slavery\ncan never go into New Mexico. Mr. Smith\u2019s address has been published\nfor two months; it has been on the tables of members, published, and\nquoted from in the newspapers, and yet Mr. Webster continues to cite\nMr. Smith as a witness in his favor. What influences were used to\ninduce Mr. Smith to withhold, in the letter to Mr. Webster, the facts\nand views which he has so clearly brought out in the letter to his\nconstituents?\n\nThe next and last citation is from an officer at Santa Fe. No name is\ngiven. We are informed neither of the character of the author nor of\nhis means of information; and if this authority is as fallacious and\ndeceptive as the preceding, it is a great deal worse than nothing. It\nwould be like the testimony sometimes offered in court, which ruins the\ncause and dishonors the counsel.\n\n4. In his Kennebec letter, Mr. Webster says, \u201cI have studied the\ngeography of New Mexico diligently, having read all that I could find\nin print, and inquired of many intelligent persons, who have been\nin the country, traversed it, and become familiar with it.\u201d He sets\nforth his knowledge in this confident tone, so that his impressions\nin favor of the _natural_ prohibition of slavery may be more readily\nreceived. According to this statement, he must have read the letters\nof Mr. James S. Calhoun, Indian agent at Santa Fe, communicated to\nCongress by the President, on the 23d of January last. Speaking of the\nNavajoes, a tribe of 7,000 Indians, within the limits of what it is\nproposed to include in New Mexico, Mr. Calhoun says, that it is \u201cnot\na rare instance for one individual to possess 5,000 to 10,000 sheep,\nand 400 to 500 head of other stock,\u201d (p. 184;) and that their country\n\u201cis rich in its valleys, rich in its fields of grain, and rich in its\nvegetables and peach orchards.\u201d (p. 199.) \u201cWe encamped,\u201d says he, \u201cnear\nextensive cornfields, belonging to the Navajoes.\u201d (p. 197.) Their\n\u201csoil is easy of cultivation, and capable of sustaining nearly as many\nmillions of inhabitants as they have thousands.\u201d (p. 202.) Look at\nthis: A country owned by one tribe capable, according to Mr. Calhoun,\nof sustaining nearly 7,000,000 inhabitants, and yet, as Mr. Webster\navers, inaccessible to slavery, on account of its barrenness!\n\nSpeaking of the Indians, (Pueblos,) on the Rio Grande, Mr. Calhoun\nsays, \u201cThese people can raise immense quantities of corn and wheat, and\nhave large herds of sheep and goats. The grazing for cattle generally\nis superior.\u201d (p. 206.) Of the more western Pueblos, he says, they\nhave \u201can extent of country nearly four hundred miles square\u201d;--more\nthan twenty times as large as Massachusetts;--\u201cthey have rich valleys\nto cultivate, grow quantities of corn and wheat, and raise vast herds\nof horses, mules, sheep, and goats, all of which may be immensely\nincreased by properly stimulating their industry, and instructing them\nin the agricultural arts.\u201d (p. 215.)\n\nI might cite much more from the same authority, to the same effect; but\nI do not refer to Mr. Calhoun so much for the purpose of showing the\nagricultural capabilities of New Mexico, as of asking why Mr. Webster\ndid not quote from this recent official work, which has been lying on\nthe tables of members for months, instead of quoting descriptions from\nmilitary officers respecting a country which he well knew they had\nnever seen?\n\nThere is good reason to believe that there are wide tracts of fertile\nland lying between the Sierra de los Mimbres and the Sierra Nevada,\non the east and west, and the 32d and 35th degrees of latitude. The\nwaters at the mouth of a river give no doubtful indication respecting\nthe country from which they flow. If the volume be large, we know it\nmust drain an extensive region; for the waters of a great river cannot\nbe supplied from a narrow surface. So if the water be muddy, as is said\nto be the case with that of the Colorado, it is proof that it courses\nthrough a diluvial country. But however this may be, all accounts\nconcur in representing New Mexico to be rich in mines; and mines are\nthe favorite sphere for slavery, as the ocean is for commerce.\n\nIn his late speech in the Senate, Mr. Davis, of Massachusetts, said,\nthat however it might be with regard to employing slaves in New Mexico\nfor raising crops of corn or cotton, there was still one purpose to\nwhich they might be applied,--the most odious of all purposes,--to\nraising crops from themselves. From this \u201cSouthern Hive,\u201d the markets\nof Texas and Louisiana might be supplied with \u201cvigintial\u201d crops of\nhuman beings. It will be incumbent on Mr. Webster to invent some\nnew \u201cphysical\u201d law to meet this astute suggestion of his colleague.\n\u201cAsiatic scenery\u201d will hardly answer his purpose here.\n\nWithin the limits of the proposed territory of New Mexico, it is said,\non the authority of Humboldt, that that powerful and comparatively\ncivilized people, the Aztecs, once resided. Can any person for a\nmoment believe that the Aztecs ever grew to opulence and power, in any\nsuch sterile and desolate region, as Mr. Webster\u2019s \u201cdiligent reading\u201d\nportrays?\n\nBut what must satisfy every man whose blindness is not of the soul\nrather than of the senses, is the fact that the people of New Mexico,\nin the constitution which they have just framed, have embodied a\nprohibition of slavery in their fundamental law. Had slavery been\nforbidden there by any \u201cAsiatic scenery,\u201d or by any \u201claw of physical\ngeography,\u201d who should know it better than they? They have had slavery\namongst them heretofore, and therefore they know it can invade them\nagain, and therefore they forbid it; and in the choice of senators to\nCongress under the new organization, should any candidate put forward\nthe vagary, the phantasm, the fatuity, that slavery _cannot_ exist\namong them, they would doubtless deem him a less fit subject for the\nSenate of the United States than for sanitary treatment.\n\nHow stands the evidence, then, on the question, whether \u201cCalifornia\nand New Mexico,\u201d from their geology, their geography, or their Asiatic\nscenery, are inaccessible or not, to the invasion of slavery? It\nis well known that the war with Mexico was provoked, and violently\nprecipitated upon the country, in order to extend the domain and the\npower of slavery. In negotiating for the cession of California and New\nMexico, the Mexican commissioners strove to introduce a prohibition\nagainst slavery into the treaty. This demonstrates that they thought\nslavery could exist there. Our minister declared that he would assent\nto no such stipulation, though they would cover all the land a foot\nthick with gold. This shows the tenacity with which Mr. Polk\u2019s\nadministration, and all its southern friends, adhered to their original\npurpose of obtaining new territory for slavery. In view of this, the\nHouse of Representatives again and again voted to apply the proviso to\nwhatever territory should be obtained. When the treaty was ratified,\nmany of the leading senators voted against the clause for acquisition,\nforeseeing the present controversy, and hoping to avert it. Even after\nthe treaty was ratified, leading southern Whigs in the House voted\nagainst paying the first instalment under it, still clinging to the\nhope that the territory might be restored to Mexico, and this cause of\ndissension withdrawn. During all this period, fourteen of the northern\nlegislatures, many of them again and again, voted that the proviso\nshould be applied. The present six months\u2019 contest, in the Senate and\nHouse, between the north and the south, is conducted solely on the\nconviction that slavery _may_ exist in the territories; and that it\nwill or will not exist there, according as the law allows or forbids\nit. Otherwise it would be the most nonsensical and nugatory discussion\never engaged in out of a lunatic asylum. Once make it as clear as any\nlaw of physical nature, that slavery can never transgress the bounds of\nthe new territories, and there is not a man so demented that he would\nany longer contend either for the proviso, or against it. Mr. Webster\nwas always of the same opinion, and has declared it a hundred times. In\nhis Marshfield speech, September 1, 1848, he said, \u201cHe [General Cass]\nwill surely have the Senate, and with the patronage of the government,\nwith every interest that he, as a northern man, can bring to bear,\nco\u00f6perating with every interest that the south can bring to bear, we\ncry safety before we are out of the woods, _if we feel that there is no\ndanger_ [of slavery] _as to these new territories_.\u201d Up to the 7th of\nMarch, 1850, then, when he abandoned all the doctrines and sentiments\nhe had ever before advocated on this subject, and when he incurred\nthe public, hearty approval and encomiums of Mr. Calhoun, by his\nmoral agility in springing, at one leap, from Massachusetts to South\nCarolina;--until this time, Mr. Webster had always held, that slavery\nwould invade the new territories if not barred out of them by positive\nlaw. And what would be still more remarkable, if the doctrines of the\n7th of March speech had the least shadow of soundness in them, is, that\nthey have now been before the public for more than four months, and, so\nfar as I know, not a single southern man has been converted by them.\nAre not Mr. Benton, Mr. Mason, Colonel Davis, and thousands of others,\nindividually, as good judges, or as good witnesses, as he is? Since\nthe speech, the people of New Mexico have prohibited slavery in their\nconstitution, because they knew it to be possible among them. Before\nthe speech, California did the same, and for the same reason. The\nNashville convention has just resolved, \u201cThat California is peculiarly\nadapted for slave labor, and that if the tenure of slave property was\nby recognition of this kind secured in that part of the country south\nof 36\u00b0 30\u00b4, it would in a short time form one or more slaveholding\nstates, to swell the number and power of those already in existence.\u201d\nEven those who seek to apologize for Mr. Webster, avow, at the same\ntime, their disbelief in his doctrine. Such is the evidence, on the\none side and on the other, as to the possibility or impossibility of\nslavery in the territories. Mr. Webster is against the whole world, and\nthe whole world is against him, and this, too, on a question already\nsettled by history and experience. He is just as much to be believed,\nas a man who looks up into the clear midnight sky, and denies the\nexistence of the heavenly host, while all the stars of the firmament\nare shining down into his eyes.\n\nTo increase the overwhelming proof against Mr. Webster, I add the\nfollowing:--\n\n                                 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, June 1, 1850.\n\n                              HON. S. R. THURSTON, Delegate from Oregon.\n\n DEAR SIR; In a speech delivered by you, in the House of\n Representatives, in March last, I understood you to say that you\n had been in the valley of the Great Salt Lake, and that you were\n acquainted, from personal observation, with a large part of the\n territory of California. Will you be so good as to give me your\n opinion, and the reasons for entertaining it, of the probability or\n improbability of the introduction of slave labor into any part of the\n territory recently acquired by the United States from Mexico; provided\n such introduction be not prohibited by law.\n\n I wish to obtain your opinion in regard to other kinds of labor,\n as well as agricultural; because, as it seems to me, a most\n unwarrantable, if not a most disingenuous attempt has been made, to\n lead the public to believe that no form of slave labor will ever\n be introduced there, because, possibly, or probably, it may not be\n introduced for agricultural purposes.\n\n A reply at your earliest convenience will much oblige\n\n                                                      Yours, very truly,\n\n                                                            HORACE MANN.\n\n\n                                              WASHINGTON, June 10, 1850.\n\n                                                       HON. HORACE MANN;\n\n I received a note from you some days ago, making certain inquiries,\n but which, up to this time, I have been unable to answer. I desire to\n take no part in the question now dividing the country; but as you have\n asked my judgment upon a matter which appears to be a disputed point,\n I cannot, consistently with the law of courtesy, refuse you an answer.\n That answer will be in conformity with what I have frequently said,\n heretofore, in private conversation with gentlemen on this subject.\n\n The point of inquiry seems to be, whether slave labor could be\n profitably employed in Oregon, California, Utah, and New Mexico. If\n the nature of the climate and resources of these countries are such\n as to furnish a profitable market for slave labor, it appears to be\n conceded, on all sides, that it would be introduced, if left free to\n seek profitable investment, like other capital. The whole point at\n issue, then, is dependent, as it is conceived, upon the determination\n of the first point of inquiry. Hence, to that point, only, it is\n necessary for me to confine my answer.\n\n I need not remind you of the law regulating the investment of capital.\n It will always go where, under all circumstances, it will yield the\n greatest return to the owner. Upon this principle I am very clear,\n that slave labor, if unrestricted, could be employed in Oregon, with\n at least double the profit to the owner of the slave that it now\n yields in any state of the Union. I am uninformed as to the usual\n price of slave labor in the states, but the price paid to Indians in\n Oregon during the past year, for labor, has ranged from two to three\n dollars per day. Domestic negro servants, whether male or female,\n who understand the business of housework, would command, _readily_,\n five or six hundred dollars a year. I recollect well that there was a\n mulatto man on board the vessel in which I took passage from Oregon to\n San Francisco, who was paid _one hundred and eighty_ dollars per month\n for his services as cook. I will not stop to particularize further,\n in regard to the inducements Oregon would offer to unrestricted slave\n labor, but will simply add, that a very large number of slaves might\n now be employed in Oregon at annual wages sufficiently large to\n purchase their freedom. I think, therefore, that the point is settled\n so far as Oregon is concerned, and that slave labor, if it had been\n left free to seek profitable employment, would readily find its way to\n that territory.\n\n As to California, I am equally clear. California will always be a\n mining country, and wages will range high. At present, slave labor in\n California would be more profitable than in Oregon. And I have always\n been of the opinion, that wherever there is a mining country, if not\n in a climate uncongenial to slave labor, that species of labor would\n be profitable. That it would be in the California mines, is evident.\n A good able-bodied slave would have commanded, in California, during\n the past year, from eight to ten hundred dollars per annum. When it\n is recollected that one hundred dollars per annum, upon an average,\n is considered a good compensation for their labor in the Southern\n States, it is idle, in my judgment, to contend that slaves would not\n be carried to the California market, if protected by law.\n\n The greatest impediment which white labor has to encounter in\n the mines, is the intensity of the heat, and the prevalence of\n bilious disease. The one is almost insufferable, while the other is\n pestilential. Against both of these the negro is almost proof. Now,\n while white labor is so high, it is evident that no one can hire a\n white laborer, except at a rate that would consume his profit. Not so\n with negro labor. That species of labor might be obtained for half the\n amount which you would have to pay for white labor. The result would\n be a profit alike to the hirer and seller of slave labor. There is no\n doubt, in my judgment, that almost any number of slaves might be hired\n out in California, were the whites willing to allow it, at from eight\n to ten hundred dollars a year. This is pay so much above what their\n services command in the states, as to satisfy any one, that could this\n species of service be protected in California, it would rush to the\n Pacific in almost any quantity.\n\n Let us next turn our attention to Utah and New Mexico. I have no\n doubt, from what knowledge I have of those countries, that they will\n turn out to be filled with the richest mines. I clip the following\n from a recent paper, containing the news from Texas and Chihuahua:--\n\n \u201cMr. James was informed, by Major Neighbours and Mr. Lee Vining,\n that they had been shown by Major Stein, some gold washed out by his\n troops, on the Gila River, in a short excursion to that stream.\n\n \u201cIt is reported, that, at the copper mines above El Paso, there are\n about one hundred tons of pure copper lying upon the ground. This had\n been got out by Mexicans, and abandoned when attacked by Indians.\n\n \u201cThere are at El Paso, in the hands of different persons, several\n large amounts of silver ore, taken from the mines in that\n neighborhood. With guaranties of titles to lands, and protection from\n Indians, only a short time would elapse before all these mines would\n be well worked, and we would have large quantities of metal seeking a\n market through this place.\u201d\n\nAnd if you consult Fremont\u2019s map, printed by order of the Senate in\n1848, you will find, near the source of one of the branches of the\nGila River, \u201ccopper and gold mines\u201d laid down. And if I am not greatly\nmistaken, it will turn out that the Mormons are in possession of the\nrichest kind of mines, east of the Sierra Nevada. It is known, too,\nthat silver and copper mines have, for many years, been worked in New\nMexico; and I am informed by Hugh N. Smith, Esq., that there are, in\nthat territory, gold, silver, copper, lead, and zinc mines of the\nrichest quality, and that the reason why they have not latterly been\nworked more extensively is, that it is prevented by the incursions of\nthe Indians. He is of the opinion, and he is borne out by what history\nwe can get on the subject, that when these mines shall come to be\nexplored, their wealth will turn out to be enormous. When you have\nonce cast your eye over the country lying west of the Rocky Mountains,\nand east of the Sierra Nevada, and are informed of the peculiarity of\nthe gold bearing region, you at once become convinced that the United\nStates is in possession of mineral wealth so vast, that ages will not\nbe able to measure its extent. And when these mines shall begin to be\ndeveloped, and their unquestionable richness known, population will set\nthat way, attended with the usual consequences, high prices, and a\ndemand for labor. If slave labor is like other capital, if it will go\nwhere it is best paid, then we have a right to say it will seek these\nmines, and become a part of the producing capital of the country where\nthose mines are located. That these whole regions are filled with rich\nmines, is little less than certain, and that they can be profitably\nworked by slave labor is sure. Hence, were I a southern man, and my\nproperty invested in slaves, I should consider the markets of New\nMexico, Utah, and California, for slave labor, worthy of an honorable\ncontest to secure.\n\n                        I am, sir, with due consideration, yours, truly,\n\n                                                     SAMUEL R. THURSTON.\n\n5. The Kennebec letter has another most extraordinary and discreditable\npassage. It is near the close. Mr. Webster quotes from a speech\ndelivered by him in the Senate, March 23, 1848, says it was published\nin newspapers and circulated in pamphlet form, and that that speech\ncontained the same doctrines in regard to the \u201clegal construction and\neffect of the resolutions\u201d for admitting Texas, as are contained in\nthe speech of the 7th of March. He says nobody complained then, and he\nwonders that any body should complain now.\n\nIt is very remarkable that such a man as Mr. Webster should furnish,\nin the very quotation which he offers, the means of utterly confuting\nthe assertion which he makes. I suppose this can be accounted for only\non the ground, that he now occupies a position so antagonistic to that\nwhich he has abandoned that he can hardly refer to his former views\nwithout self-impeachment and self-conviction. Let passages from the two\nspeeches be placed side by side, to show, not their identity, but their\nutter irreconcilability.\n\n                                                         MARCH 23, 1848.\n\n                                        [_A passage quoted by himself._]\n\n \u201cIt shall be _in the power_ of Congress hereafter to make _four_ other\n new states out of Texan territory.\u201d\n\n                                                         MARCH 7, 1850.\n\n \u201cI wish it to be distinctly understood, to-day, that, according to my\n view of the matter, this government _is solemnly pledged by law and\n contract_ to create new states out of Texas,\u201d &c. (p. 42.)\n\nThe first quotation only asserts a \u201cpower\u201d in Congress to create new\nstates; the last affirms an obligation, \u201cby law and contract,\u201d to do\nso. How could Mr. Webster have expected that this broad distinction\nbetween _power_ and _duty_, between _option_ and _obligation_, could\nescape the attention of his readers?\n\nBut there is another discrepancy or contradiction still more remarkable:\n\n                                                        MARCH 23, 1848.\n\n \u201cIt shall be in the power of Congress hereafter to make _four_ other\n new states out of Texan territory.\u201d\n\n                                                         MARCH 7, 1850.\n\n \u201c----the guaranty is, that new states shall be made out of it, and\n that such states as are formed out of that portion of Texas lying\n south of 36\u00b0 30\u00b4, may come in as slave states to the number of _four_,\n in addition to the state then in existence.\u201d (p. 29.)\n\nThe first speech speaks of the _power_ of Congress, but the last of the\n_obligation_ of Congress, to admit new states out of Texan territory.\nThe first speaks of \u201cfour other new states;\u201d but the last of the\n\u201cguaranty\u201d to admit \u201cSLAVE states to the number of four.\u201d Yet the first\nspeech is cited, to men who can read and write, as identical \u201cin legal\nconstruction and effect\u201d with the last. The motto under which Danton\nattempted to carry himself through his bloody career, was: \u201c_L\u2019audace,\nl\u2019audace, toujours l\u2019audace_.\u201d \u201cAudacity, audacity, always audacity.\u201d\n\nBut what else did Mr. Webster say, in his speech of the 23d of March,\n1848? Referring to the debate which took place in December, 1845, on\nthe final act for admitting Texas, Mr. Webster said: \u201cAnd I added, that\nwhile I held, with as much faithfulness as any citizen of the country,\nto all the original arrangements and compromises of the constitution\nunder which we live, I never could, and I never should, bring myself\nto be in favor of the admission of any states into the Union as\nslaveholding states.\u201d[13] This is what Mr. Webster reports himself to\nhave said when the final vote on the admission of Texas was immediately\nto be taken, and when he commenced his speech by saying, \u201cI am quite\naware, Mr. President, that the resolution will pass,\u201d--meaning the\nresolution for the admission of Texas. Mr. Webster\u2019s \u201cnever could and\nnever should\u201d covered the exact case of the then contemplated future\nslaveholding states to be formed out of Texas. While in the broadness\nof its terms it embraced all slaveholding states, whensoever, or\nwhencesoever they might come, it had special and pointed application to\nany slave state to be thereafter formed out of Texan territory.\n\nIn the same speech of December 22, 1845, Mr. Webster spoke as follows:--\n\n \u201cIt may be said that according to the provisions of the constitution,\n new states are to be admitted on the same footing as the old states.\n It may be so; but it does not follow at all from that provision that\n every territory or portion of country may at pleasure establish\n slavery, and then say we will become a portion of the Union; and will\n bring with us the principles which we may have thus adopted, and must\n be received on the same footing as the old states. It will always\n be a question whether the old states have not a right, (and I think\n they have the clearest right,) to require that the state coming into\n the Union should come in upon an equality; and, if the existence of\n slavery be an impediment to coming in on an equality, then the state\n proposing to come in should be required to remove that inequality by\n abolishing slavery, or take the alternative of being excluded.\u201d\n\nHe also said, in the same speech, \u201cI agree with the unanimous opinion\nof the legislature of Massachusetts.\u201d\n\nAnd what was this \u201cunanimous opinion of the legislature of\nMassachusetts\u201d? Among many other things equally decisive, the\nMassachusetts legislature, on the 26th of March, 1845,--and, of course,\nlong after the annexation resolutions had been passed,--declared as\nfollows:--\n\n \u201cAnd whereas the consent of the executive and legislative departments\n of the government of the United States has been given, by a resolution\n passed on the 27th of February last, to the adoption of preliminary\n measures to accomplish this nefarious project, [the admission of\n Texas, with the stipulation to admit four more states out of its\n territory;] therefore, be it\n\n \u201c_Resolved_, That Massachusetts hereby refuses to acknowledge the act\n of the government of the United States, authorizing the admission\n of Texas, as a legal act, in any way binding her from using her\n utmost exertions, in co\u00f6peration with other states, by every lawful\n and constitutional measure, to annul its conditions, and defeat its\n accomplishment.\n\n \u201c_Resolved_, That no territory hereafter applying to be admitted to\n the Union, as a state, should be admitted without a condition that\n domestic slavery should be utterly extinguished within its borders,\n and Massachusetts denies the validity of any compromise whatsoever,\n that may have been, or that may hereafter be, entered into by persons\n in the government of the Union, intended to preclude the future\n application of such a condition by the people, acting through their\n representatives in the Congress of the United States.\u201d\n\nSuch were the opinions which Mr. Webster then openly expressed, and\nsuch the resolutions of the legislature of Massachusetts, which he\nfully indorsed. Yet he now professes to wonder that any body can see\nany difference between the doctrine of those speeches and resolutions,\nand those of his speech delivered on the 7th of March.[14]\n\n6. A reference to a few other misstatements of facts will close my\nremarks on this subject.\n\nMr. Webster says that, previous to writing his Newburyport letter, he\nmade \u201cdiligent inquiry,\u201d of members of Congress from New England, to\nascertain how many arrests of fugitive slaves had been made in their\ntime; and he adds, \u201cthe result of all I can learn is this: No seizure\nof an alleged slave has ever been made in Maine.\u201d\n\nNow, two such cases have happened in the State of Maine. One took place\nin the eastern part of the state, about 1835 or \u201936. The other happened\nat or near Thomaston, a little later. In this latter case, the fugitive\ncame to Maine in a Thomaston vessel, whose master was afterwards\ndemanded as a fugitive from justice. This demand gave rise to a\nprolonged correspondence, I think, with no less than three governors\nof Maine. This correspondence was extensively circulated through the\nnewspapers, or referred to by them, and it would seem hardly possible\nthat Mr. Webster should not have seen it. Since the Newburyport letter\nwas published, this misstatement of fact has been noticed in the Maine\nnewspapers, yet no retraction is made. The misstatement is allowed\nto be spread over the whole country, uncorrected by its author. Mr.\nWebster then adds, \u201cNo seizure of an alleged fugitive slave has ever\nbeen made in Vermont.\u201d Tradition, and, as I believe, authentic history,\ncontradict Mr. Webster here. It is said by \u201cmembers of Congress\u201d from\nVermont, that an alleged fugitive was carried before Judge Harrington\nof Vermont, in 1807, and on his being asked what evidence would satisfy\nhim that the person was a slave, he replied, \u201cA bill of sale from\nAlmighty God.\u201d\n\nBut even if these statements of Mr. Webster, with regard to the New\nEngland States, were all true, it would avail him nothing; for, in\nthe eye of patriotism, it matters not where such seizures are made.\nI refer to it only to show that Mr. Webster is not to be relied upon\nin these matters, either for the accuracy of his original positions,\nor for a retraction of them, when their error is pointed out by the\npublic press. I wish not to be understood, _on this particular point_,\nas imputing to Mr. Webster an intentional misstatement; because he\naccompanied his original statement with a salvo. He confessed,--and\nhe is entitled to the full benefit of the confession,--that his\ninformation might not be \u201centirely accurate,\u201d though he supposed it not\nto be \u201cmaterially erroneous.\u201d It is \u201cmaterially erroneous;\u201d and though\none error has been exposed in the Maine papers, he does not rectify it.\nPossibly he does not know it.\n\nWhile holding Massachusetts up to reproach for \u201cgrowing fervid on\nPennsylvania wrongs,\u201d Mr. Webster draws succor and encouragement\nfrom the Society of Friends, and especially from the Friends of\nPennsylvania. He says that they remain \u201cof sound and disposing minds\nand memories;\u201d and he contrasts their wisdom and composure with the\n\u201cvehement and empty declarations, the wild and fantastic conduct of\nboth men and women which have so long disturbed and so much disgraced\nthe commonwealth\u201d of Massachusetts. He then adds, \u201cI am misled by\nauthority which ought not to mislead, if it be not true, that that\ngreat body, [of Friends,] approves the sentiments to which I gave\nutterance on the floor of the Senate.\u201d I will now show that this\nalleged approval by the Friends, though worthy of any price but truth,\nwas too dearly bought.\n\nIt is well known that the Friends are divided into two great\ndenominations. Each has its periodical, one now in its eighth, the\nother in its fourth year. In the numbers published since the appearance\nof the Newburyport letter, both these periodicals do not \u201capprove,\u201d\nbut repudiate and denounce the sentiments to which Mr. Webster gave\nutterance \u201con the floor of the Senate.\u201d\n\nThe _Friend\u2019s Intelligencer_ deals at length with Mr. Webster\u2019s\n\u201csentiments\u201d on the \u201cFugitive Slave Bill;\u201d on the legislation of the\nnorth for the protection of its own citizens; on his pseudo discoveries\nin \u201cphysical geography;\u201d and on the \u201clegal construction and effect\u201d of\nthe Texas resolutions; and it condemns them all.\n\nThe _Friend\u2019s Review_ dissents not less positively from Mr. Webster\u2019s\npositions; and both call him severely to account for the defamation of\nthemselves, which his letter implies.\n\nOn his \u201csentiments\u201d respecting fugitive slaves, the \u201c_Review_\u201d observes\nthat they have yet to learn \u201cthat that part of his speech was approved\nby any member or professor of the society.\u201d\n\nI wish I had space to quote from these able articles, but must forbear.\n\nJohn G. Whittier, Esq., speaking for the Quakers of New England, gives\n\u201ca peremptory denial\u201d to Mr. Webster\u2019s statement. I quote the following\nparagraph from him:--\n\n \u201cNow, we undertake to say that there is not a member of the Society of\n Friends, in free or slave states, who, whether acting as a magistrate\n or as citizen, could carry out the provisions of this most atrocious\n bill, without rendering himself liable to immediate expulsion from\n a society whose character would be disgraced, and whose discipline\n would be violated, by such action. It has been, in times past, the\n misfortune of the Society of Friends to be vilified, caricatured,\n and misrepresented; but we remember nothing, even in the old days of\n persecution, so hard to bear as the compliments of the Massachusetts\n senator. Whatever his \u2018authority\u2019 may have been, we do not hesitate to\n pronounce it unqualifiedly false to the last degree.\u201d\n\nNow what shall be thought of a cause that requires such a series of\nfabrications as Mr. Webster is here proved to have made, or of the man\nthat can make it!\n\nThere are many other points presented by Mr. Webster\u2019s speech of the\n7th of March, or by what he has since said and written to defend it,\nwhich seem to me as unwarrantable in fact, and as reprehensible in\nprinciple, as any above enumerated. I shall close these notes, however,\nwith one comment more; reserving others,--though sincerely hoping never\nto have occasion to use them.\n\nAmong the excoriations with which Mr. Webster amused himself and his\nsouthern new-born pro-slavery admirers, on the 7th of March last, he\nflayed nobody half so deeply or so complacently, as he did his old\nfellow-senators, Messrs. Dix, of New York, and Niles, of Connecticut.\nHe scored them to the living flesh, and then soothed their smarting\nwounds by vitriol and caustic, as though he loved them. Their agency\nin the Texas swindle, he made odiously conspicuous. He taunted them\nwith heart-piercing innuendo for their compulsory retirement from\npublic life. And then he portrayed them as occupying their enforced\nvacation in attempting to rouse the people to save those regions\nfrom the curse of slavery, which, but for their sins, never would\nhave been exposed to it. He worked up the scene so graphically, that\nevery one mocked at their contemptible plight, and at the ridiculous\ncontrast between the swiftness of their offence and the lameness of\ntheir expiation. The effect was dramatic. The pro-slavery part of the\ngallery and the floor responded with a shout of laughter. Yet devoted\nand long-tried friends of Mr. Webster were there, whom no darkness of\nblindness could prevent from seeing that his bitter sarcasm against\nthe ex-senators, though calculated to make the \u201cunskilful laugh,\u201d must\nmake the \u201cjudicious grieve.\u201d They could not fail to see that he, Mr.\nWebster himself, at that very moment, was occupying precisely the same\npro-slavery ground, which Messrs. Dix and Niles had occupied, when\nthey brought in Texas and \u201cre\u00e4nnexed\u201d California and New Mexico. He\nwas exerting all his great talents to do an act of precisely the same\ncharacter which Messrs. Dix and Niles had done;--that is, to open new\nterritory to slavery. And doubtless the first thought which arose in\nmany a mind was the same melancholy one which spontaneously arose in\nmy own, that should he succeed in arguing down, or laughing down the\n\u201c_Wilmot_\u201d as he twice scornfully called the great proviso of freedom;\nand should he then betake himself to penitence and prayer, and by years\nof effort, strive to stay back from slavery the regions he had doomed\nto it, he would only have elevated himself to the very \u201cplatform\u201d on\nwhich Messrs. Dix and Niles stood _when he made them the objects of his\ntaunts and ridicule_!\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[12] The above criticism on Mr. Webster\u2019s latinity aroused many\nself-supposed scholars, or at least fair proficients in the Latin\ngrammar, to take up the pen in his defence. But unluckily, the quills\nthey seized were plucked, not from the Roman eagle, but from the wings\nof some of those \u201cunclean birds,\u201d to which Mr. Webster had introduced\nthem. Among the most conspicuous of these defenders of Mr. Webster\u2019s\nludicrous blunder, was Professor Felton, of Harvard College. If any\nperson wishes to see one of the most neat, elegant, and at the same\ntime thorough cases of _deplumation_, any where to be found in literary\nhistory, in which an individual who strutted on to the stage as a\n_peacock_, was soon obliged to leave it as a _daw_, he has only to read\nDr. Beck\u2019s articles in \u201cThe Literary World,\u201d in which the fabricated\nquotation of Mr. Webster, and Professor Felton\u2019s defence of it, are\nshown to be exceedingly bad as Latin, and much worse as logic.\n\n[13] Cong. Globe, 1st session 30th Congress, p. 533.\n\n[14] Professor Stuart, in a pamphlet entitled \u201cConscience and the\nConstitution,\u201d pp. 78, 9, steps in to defend Mr. Webster\u2019s position\nthat we are bound, by contract with Texas, to admit from her territory,\n\u201cslave states to the number of four;\u201d and he incidentally refers to and\ncombats my views on this subject.\n\nI respectfully submit to the revered and learned professor a single\nconsideration, which I trust will convince him that I am not in error.\n\nFor argument\u2019s sake, admit the contract with Texas to be unimpeachable;\nalthough, if it be so, I see not why any one Congress may not absorb\nand exhaust all the power to admit new states, which the constitution\ncontains, by making contracts for centuries to come, for all the\nnew states that shall be admitted; and for all the applications for\nadmission that shall be rejected. But, admitting the validity of the\nTexan contract, what does it purport? That \u201cnew states,\u201d \u201cnot exceeding\nfour,\u201d \u201cmay be formed out of the territory thereof.\u201d Those south of 36\u00b0\n30\u00b4, may be slave; that, or those, north of 36\u00b0 30\u00b4, shall be free;\nthe whole \u201cnot exceeding four.\u201d Here, then, is an executory and mutual\ncontract. It is executory; because it is not to be executed at the time\nof making, but _in futuro_. It is mutual, because, for the State of\nTexas, and for the one or more slave states, south of 36\u00b0 30\u00b4, there\nare to be one or more free states north of it.\n\nNow, the principle is so clear that I think no one will for a moment\ndispute it, that when an executory and mutual contract is to be\nexecuted, say at four different times, each preceding act of execution\nmust be such as to allow of the ultimate execution of the whole.\nNeither the first, second, nor third act of execution, must be so\nexecuted as to render the fourth impossible. Neither the first, second,\nnor third act, must be so executed in favor of either of the parties,\nas to render the execution of the fourth, in favor of the other party,\nimpossible. But if Texas can have \u201c_slave_ states to the number of\n_four_,\u201d formed in succession out of her territory, then, as the whole\nnumber to be formed is not to exceed \u201cfour,\u201d there can be _no_ free\nstate formed, under the alleged contract.\n\nIt is not within my knowledge that such an interpretation of this\nsupposed contract was ever suggested by any Texan citizen, or by\nany southern man. I suppose it to have been advanced, _first_, by a\nnorthern senator; and seconded, _first_, by a northern divine.\n\n\n\n\n                                LETTER\n\nANSWERING AN INVITATION TO CELEBRATE THE ANNIVERSARY OF THE ORDINANCE\nOF 1787, AT CLEVELAND, OHIO.\n\n\n                                              WEST NEWTON, July 9, 1849.\n\nGENTLEMEN;\n\nI have received your kind invitation to be present at Cleveland, on\nthe 13th inst., to celebrate the anniversary of the great \u201cOrdinance\u201d\nwhich excluded slavery forever from, and secured freedom forever to the\nNorth-western Territory. If I could tell you how deeply I sympathize\nwith you in this movement, and how much my soul desires, not merely to\ncelebrate, but to hallow the event, you would then believe me when I\nsay, that I have had a sharp struggle not to forego all considerations\nof business and of health, for the purpose of joining in your festival.\nI regard the Ordinance which redeemed a territory of more than _two\nhundred and sixty thousand square miles_, from the unspeakable sin and\ncurse of slavery, and consecrated it to freedom, as one of the grandest\nmoral events in the annals of mankind.\n\nWithout that Ordinance, the Declaration of Independence itself, in\nits application to that vast and fertile region, would have been\ndeprived of its power to confer blessing and prosperity upon it; and\nit is a fact never to be forgotten, that the original Declaration and\nthe original Ordinance were both drawn up by the same great champion\nof human rights, whose hatred of slavery grew strong and deep by his\npersonal knowledge of its wrongs and its calamities.\n\nWithout the Ordinance, the Revolution itself, in its application to\nthat territory, and the treaty of 1783, by which its ample domain was\nsecured to the Union, would have been shorn of their glory, and robbed\nof their value.\n\nWithout the Ordinance, the discovery of this Western continent, so far\nas that territory constitutes a part of it, would have given us no\noccasion to remember the name of Columbus with gratitude.\n\nWithout the Ordinance, it would have been better, at the creation of\nthe world, that all that part of it which now constitutes your five\nbeautiful and flourishing states, with a residuum of space large enough\nfor still another, had been left as a \u201cDead Sea,\u201d whose bitter and\npoisonous waters would not have allowed a live thing to swim beneath\nits surface, nor to fly above it, nor a green thing to grow by its\nshores.\n\nAnd without the Ordinance, it is no irreverence to say, that even the\nomnipotent Spirit of God, working through natural laws, for human\nprogress and human blessedness, would have met with bafflings and\nthreatenings in its operations and influences for the redemption of the\nrace.\n\nAccept, gentlemen, the assurance of my sympathy and regard.\n\n                                                            HORACE MANN.\n\n                                     Messrs. J. C. VAUGHAN, } Committee.\n                                              THOMAS BROWN, }\n\n\n\n\n                                LETTER\n\nACCEPTING THE NOMINATION OF THE FREE SOIL CONVENTION FOR REPRESENTATIVE\nTO THE THIRTY-SECOND CONGRESS.\n\n\n                                             WEST NEWTON, Oct. 24, 1850.\n\nHON. C. F. ADAMS;\n\nDear Sir,--Your favor of the 21st inst., is this day received. It\ninforms me that at a convention, (over which you had the honor to\npreside,) held at Dedham, on the 16th inst., I was unanimously\nnominated as a candidate for Representative to the thirty-second\nCongress of the United States. For the kind terms in which your\ncommunication is expressed, be pleased to accept my thanks.\n\nThis nomination places me in no new relation to the friends of freedom\nand humanity, wherever they may be found. I believe my name was first\nsuggested to the voters of this district, (now nearly three years\nago,) on the ground of my supposed devotion to the rights of men.\nThe resolutions passed at all the conventions by which I have been\nnominated, and especially those passed so repeatedly and unanimously\nby our state legislature, have been in the nature of instructions;\nor, at least, of urgent advice and solicitation, in regard to my\ncourse on the great questions which have since agitated the country.\nMy own convictions of duty so fully and entirely corresponding with\nthe injunctions thus laid upon me, it has been easy for me to act in\nfull conformity to the wishes of the great majority of my constituents\nand of the state, as those wishes have been repeatedly expressed.\nThis renders any detailed exposition of expectations on your part,\nor of assurances on mine, unnecessary. I know that the leading and\nmost valued article in your creed is the sacredness and security of\nhuman freedom. You know that I embrace this same article of faith\nwith my whole heart. Other matters may be very important, but still\nare subordinate. Peculiar forms of organization are comparatively\nnon-essentials. They are but means to ends; and, in regard to them,\na large allowance is to be made for honest differences of opinion.\nBut the natural right of every human being to the liberty which God\nhas given him, until forfeited by crime of his own; the duty of\nour government to save every part of this earth over which it has\njurisdiction from the direst of all earthly curses and the greatest\nof all social crimes,--the curse and the crime of slavery;--these are\namong the first of the dread accountabilities that attach to rational\nand immortal creatures.\n\nI believe it also to be the duty of government to provide for the\neconomical or pecuniary welfare of the people; to encourage industry\nby securing the rewards of labor to the laborer, and to discourage the\ncompetitions into which those who rule and control the impoverished,\ndegraded, and almost brutified laborers of other countries, are\nstriving to enter with our own people,--competitions, which, if\nnot prevented, will, to a great extent, reduce our laborers to the\nwretchedness and privation of theirs. I believe that the money, and\nthe comforts purchasable with it, which such competitions take from\nthe workman here, do not go to improve the condition of the workman\nthere, but are intercepted and appropriated by others. I make this\nstatement of my views all the more readily, because I do not wish to\nreceive an unintelligent vote from any man, and I therefore abjure all\ndisguises and reserves. From my past votes and speeches in Congress my\nconstituents know upon what principles and to what ends I have acted.\nTo them I refer, and deem it unnecessary to say more.\n\nThose who have taken the trouble to read what I have said on the floor\nof the House, must have seen that, though I have endeavored to express\nsome stern truths, on vital subjects, in unambiguous language, yet that\nI have never uttered a word designed to inflict unnecessary pain upon\nour political brethren of the south; or to wound feelings which men may\nerroneously call honorable. I desire to pursue the same course at all\ntimes and with all men. The cause of liberty is one in which the true\nobject of ambition is to make great principles most clear, and not to\nuse harsh expressions respecting the conduct or opinion of others. It\nis as necessary that the man whom I would convince should be in a calm\nstate of mind, as that I should be in such a state myself. Exasperation\nparalyzes judgment. The great points on which men and parties so\nvehemently differ, can only be permanently settled at the tribunal of\nreason and conscience.\n\nSeveral laws were passed at the last session of Congress, on which\nI desired and designed to speak, in the name and on behalf of my\nconstituents. But I was obliged to act upon them, under the silence\nenforced by the previous question. One of them, in particular, was so\nhostile to all the principles which history and reason had ever taught\nme, and so wounding to all the sentiments which I had ever imbibed\nfrom benevolence and religion, that I resolved to seize the first\nopportunity that should be offered to portray some of its features.\nI refer to the Fugitive Slave act, so called; and I trust this will\nnot be deemed an unfitting occasion to lay bare a portion of its\nenormities. I will remark, that I had prepared an amendment for the\nsecurity of our free colored seamen in southern ports, but was shut out\nfrom all chance of offering it. It struck me that if new and oppressive\nmeasures were to be taken to carry back alleged slaves to bondage,\nsomething should also be done to restore freemen to liberty. While the\nsouth were seeking new guaranties for men who claim to own other men,\nit was a time for the north to demand new guaranties for men who own\nthemselves. But all debate was suppressed; property vanquished liberty;\nand a pure pro-slavery law was enacted, unadulterated by any alloy of\nfreedom.\n\nIn regard to this Fugitive Slave act, is it not astonishing that men\nshould ever ask the question, Does the constitution _demand_ the trial\nby jury? instead of the question, Will the constitution _allow_ it? The\nfirst is the tyrant\u2019s question, granting no more than he is compelled\nto give. The last is the republican\u2019s question, volunteering all that\nhe can grant. In a free government, where the trial by jury is held\nto be the surest safeguard of personal liberty, the inquiry ought\nnever to be, whether the constitution _secures or necessitates_ this\nform of trial; for it is enough, if the constitution will _permit_ or\n_tolerate_ it. Instead of seeking evasions, and close constructions,\nand hunting among the musty precedents of darker times, in order to\nshut out the jury trial in cases of personal liberty, the true lover\nof freedom would ask only for an interpretation that would _warrant_\nit. It would not be among his last thoughts; he would not wait until\na stern necessity forced such a construction upon him; but his\nfirst desire and effort would be to find some legitimate reason for\nconferring it. He would not ask, in how few cases he must, but in how\nmany he might, admit it. Yet this matter has been discussed, and is\nstill discussed, on one side, as though we were bound to avoid the\njury trial if we could; not as though we were bound to grant it, if by\nfair interpretation we might. It has been discussed as though the jury\ntrial, to protect a man\u2019s right to himself, were an evil; and as though\nthe sudden seizure, \u201csummary\u201d adjudication, and speedy consignment of\na fellow-being to bondage, were too precious a blessing to be put in\njeopardy, by submission to twelve good and lawful men. Not how much\nmay we do for freedom, but how much can we do for slavery, has been\nthe tacit assumption of the argument. But I pass by this for graver\nobjections.\n\nThe Fugitive Slave act purports to confer judicial power upon persons\nwho are not judges. It provides for the creation of scores and hundreds\nof officers called \u201ccommissioners,\u201d and upon these, it is said on high\nauthority, to confer _original_ and _final_ jurisdiction on questions\nof human liberty. The constitution declares in whom \u201cthe judicial power\nof the United States shall be vested.\u201d It shall be vested in \u201cone\nsupreme court, and in such inferior courts as Congress may from time\nto time establish.\u201d No commissioner, nor any number of commissioners,\nconstitute one of these courts. \u201cThe judges, both of the supreme and\ninferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior.\u201d A\ncommissioner can be made and unmade on any day. These judges are\nto \u201creceive for their services a compensation, which shall not be\ndiminished during their continuance in office.\u201d The commissioners are\ncompensated by chance fees, and not by a fixed salary. The President\nnominates and the Senate confirms judges of the supreme and inferior\ncourts. Commissioners are only the \u201cinferior officers\u201d who may be\nappointed by \u201cthe courts of law.\u201d\n\nI need not enforce the position, that the power which this act purports\nto confer upon commissioners is _judicial_. It has all the attributes\nof judicial power. It is _original_, _final_, and _exclusive_. They are\n\u201cto hear and _determine_.\u201d The fourth section says they \u201cshall have\n_concurrent_ jurisdiction with the judges of the circuit and district\ncourts of the United States.\u201d The attorney-general of the United\nStates, in a written opinion, given by command of the President of the\nUnited States, says as follows: \u201cThese officers, [the commissioners,]\nand each of them, have _judicial_ power, and jurisdiction to hear,\nexamine, and decide the case.\u201d \u201cThe certificate to be granted to\nthe owner is to be regarded as the act and judgment of a judicial\ntribunal having competent jurisdiction.\u201d \u201cCongress has constituted\na tribunal with exclusive jurisdiction to determine summarily, and\nwithout appeal, who are fugitives from service.\u201d \u201cThe judgment of\nthe tribunal created by this act is conclusive upon all tribunals.\u201d\nThe power of a commissioner, therefore, is _judicial_ in the highest\nsense,--in the sense of the constitution. His decision cannot be\nreheard or re\u00ebxamined by any judge, or by any court, of any state, or\nof the United States. In no other case can a commissioner perform any\njudicial act, or issue any executive order, whose validity may not\nbe re\u00ebxamined in the court for which he acts, or in some other. He\ncannot strike a blow, nor fine a dollar, nor punish by imprisonment\nfor an hour. By appeal, by injunction, by mandamus or certiorari, the\nproceedings of inferior courts or magistrates can be reached, and their\nlegality or constitutionality tested. But here a multitude of tribunals\nare established, over whose proceedings, not the supreme court of\nany state, no, not even the supreme court of the United States, has\nsupervision. And what do these commissioners decide? That a man has no\nright to himself; that his body, limbs, faculties, are the _property_\nof another; that he _owes service_. Suppose the question were, whether\nthe respondent owed the claimant a dollar. Could the commissioner give\njudgment and issue execution for it? Certainly not. But yet he is here\nauthorized to decide questions infinitely more important than any\namount of money. He is to decide that a man owes life-long service from\nhimself, and from all the children of his loins.\n\nBut the surrender of an alleged fugitive from service has been\ncompared with the surrender of a fugitive from justice; and because\nthe supreme executive of a state is required by the law of 1793 to\nsurrender fugitives from justice, it is claimed that any commissioner\nmay surrender fugitives from service, _without liability to question\nor re\u00ebxamination by any human authority_. But there is a world-wide\ndifference between the cases. When the fugitive from justice is\ndelivered up, he is delivered into the custody of the law. Legal\nprocess must have been commenced against him in the state from which\nhe fled. He is returned, that the proceedings thus commenced may be\nconsummated. He is never intrusted to private hands. The shield of the\nlaw is continued over him. After arrest, he is merely transferred from\nthe hands of the law in one state to the hands of the law in another\nstate. He is transferred, not to evade trial, but to have one. But the\nalleged slave is delivered up, not into the custody of the law, where\nhis rights might be adjudicated upon, but into private hands; not into\nthe hands of a neutral or indifferent person, but into the hands of\na party interested to deprive him of all his rights;--if he be not a\nslave, then into the hands of a man-stealer. Mr. Clay saw this, and\nhis plan provided that the alleged fugitive should be sent home _to be\ntried_. But the south grew bolder and bolder, until a law was passed,\nby which one class of men have less security for their freedom than\nanother class have for their cattle.\n\nIt is nugatory to say, that when an alleged fugitive has reached\nhis claimant\u2019s domicile, he may there petition for freedom. Should\nhe do so, it would be an independent and original proceeding,\ninstituted under _another_ government. Not only would the jurisdiction\nbe different, but the character of the litigants would be\nchanged,--plaintiff for defendant, and defendant for plaintiff. The\nold case is not to be reheard, but a new one tried. Indeed, a very\nintelligent writer on this subject has queried whether the certificate\nof the commissioner may not be pleaded as an estoppel. I say, then,\nthat, in effect, the commissioner, by this act, has _original_,\n_final_, and _exclusive_ jurisdiction of a \u201ccase\u201d \u201cin law,\u201d \u201carising\nunder the constitution and laws of the United States.\u201d This is the\nvery function of judges and courts. This is the identical power which\nthe constitution of the United States vests in judges who are to be\nnominated by the President, confirmed by the Senate, to hold office\nduring good behavior, and to be compensated by fixed salaries.\n\nAgain, the act consigns a man to bondage, without crime, on evidence\nwhich he has had no opportunity to controvert. The claimant must prove\nthree facts before the commissioner,--1st, That the person named in\nthe warrant owes the claimant service; 2d, That he has escaped; 3d,\nIdentity.\n\nNow, according to the act, the first two points,--the facts of owing\nservice and of escaping,--may be proved behind the respondent\u2019s back.\nThis proof may be procured against the alleged fugitive without any\nnotice to him, actual or constructive; without the possibility of his\nencountering it, or disproving it, however false it may be. If this\nbe not depriving a person of his \u201cliberty\u201d \u201cwithout due process of\nlaw,\u201d what can be? Why not make the whole case provable behind the\nman\u2019s back,--in another state,--a thousand miles off,--and spurn the\nforms of justice, after having spurned its substance? This binding of\na man by evidence obtained without his knowledge, is unknown to the\ncommon law, and abhorrent to it. It is never permitted, not even to\ndeprive the worst man of the humblest right. Our laws save the rights\nof all parties under disability. Who is under so great a disability\nas he who knows nothing, and can know nothing, of what is going on\nagainst him? Notwithstanding the constitution declares that \u201cfull faith\nand credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records,\nand judicial proceedings of every other state,\u201d yet it has been held\nthat a judgment obtained in another state, without notice, shall not\nprejudice the party against whom it was rendered. Such an act violates\nthe first principles of justice. All securities for the life, liberty\nand property of us all, are swept away if such principles can be\nestablished.\n\nOnce more: The act says the certificate \u201cshall be conclusive of the\nright of the person or persons in whose favor granted, to remove\nsuch fugitive to the state or territory from which he escaped, and\nshall prevent all molestation of such person or persons, by any\nprocess issued by any court, judge, magistrate, or any other person\nwhomsoever.\u201d According to this, the certificate is a talisman which\nprotects its holder against all law, all evidence, and all judicial\npower. A kidnapper may seize a free man in Boston, buy evidence that\nhe owes this mysterious _debt of service_, obtain the requisite\ncertificate against his victim, and then neither the mother who bore\nhim, nor the elder brothers and sisters who grew up with him, nor the\nneighbors who have known him from his cradle, nor the minister who\nbaptized him, can testify that he is free; nor can all the judges and\ncourts in the commonwealth stop the man who is bearing away one of\ntheir fellow-citizens to a bondage worse than death, to inquire into\nhis title. He is in a charmed circle that neither law nor justice can\nenter. Do you ask where is that old, time-honored writ of _habeas\ncorpus_, for which martyrs have died and rivers of blood have flowed,\nand which the constitution declares SHALL NOT be suspended \u201cunless\nwhen in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require\nit\u201d? The answer is, that the writ of _habeas corpus_ is nothing but\na \u201cprocess issued\u201d by a court, and the act declares that the holder\nof the certificate shall be exempt from all \u201cmolestation,\u201d \u201cby any\nprocess issued by any court.\u201d In one word, the law contains a\nprovision that its own constitutionality shall not be brought into\nquestion; at least, until its victim reaches the place of his bondage,\nand is beyond the reach of rescuing hands.\n\nNow, even if this act does not commit such gross infractions of the\nconstitution that the courts will set it aside, yet it would seem as\nthough no sane man could help seeing that it wars upon all our ideas\nof justice; that it repudiates and scorns all the great securities\nfor freedom which wise and good men, for centuries past, have given\ntheir labors, and their lives, to establish; and that it converts the\nvast machinery of the social state, not into the means of protecting,\nbut of assailing, the liberties of the citizen. As to the appointment\nof commissioners, it gives us none of the constitutional securities\nthat improper men will not be invested with these high prerogatives\nagainst our dearest rights; and as to the manner in which evidence\nmay be procured, it resembles the missives which the inquisition, in\nolden times, sent forth against heretics, to seize without law, to try\nwithout defence, and to punish without mercy or hope. It resembles the\n_lettres de cachet_, which, before the great revolution, the despots of\nFrance gave, _in blank_, to villain courtiers, and villain courtesans,\nto be filled up with the names of those persons whose perdition they\nwould compass.\n\nThere are other points in this bill whose enormity only needs to be\nstated to be seen and abhorred. One of them is so unspeakably mean and\ncontemptible, that all northern men must feel the insult more keenly\nthan the wrong. It provides that if a commissioner will doom a man to\nbondage, his fee shall be twice as much as though he restores him to\nliberty. Now, every body knows that claimants will rarely, if ever,\nappear before commissioners without a _prima facie_ case. If there be\nno defence, the proceedings will be brief. But a case of discharge\npresupposes a defence and a trial. A case of discharge, therefore, will\nprobably occupy as much time as half a dozen cases of surrender. Yet\nfor this greater labor, the commissioner is to have but half price. In\nassailing all we love of liberty, could not the framers and supporters\nof this measure have forborne to wound us in all we feel of honor!\n\nThe cases are to be \u201cheard and determined,\u201d as they were under\nRobespierre, \u201c_in a summary manner_.\u201d Shakspeareenumerates the \u201claw\u2019s\ndelay\u201d among the causes of suicide. Under this act, real suicides will\ndoubtless be occasioned by the _law\u2019s despatch_.[15] This \u201csummary\nmanner\u201d contains the sum of wrong. Does not every lawyer and every\nclient know that when an action is brought for the unfaithful execution\nof a contract, in building a house or a ship, or for the balance of\nan account, or for flowing lands, or for defamation or libel, the\ndefendant needs weeks and often months to make ready for his defence.\nHis witnesses may be in another state, or abroad; it may be necessary\nto examine ancient titles in registries of deeds or of wills, to make\nsurveys of premises, or investigations into character and conduct. It\noften happens that when process is first served upon a man, he does not\nknow the grounds of his own defence. They may consist of facts which he\nhas forgotten, or of law of which he is ignorant. Our courts, acting\nupon this well-known truth, have established a rule that a party,\neven after he has had fourteen days\u2019 notice, shall be entitled to a\ncontinuance as a matter of right, unless under special circumstances;\nand he may always have it on cause shown. I ask any defendant who\nwas ever forced into court to resist a claim of any magnitude or\ndifficulty, whether he was ready to do so, on the instant when process\nwas served upon him? Yet this is what the respondent must do under the\nFugitive Slave act. On the 26th day of last September, James Hamlet was\npeacefully pursuing a lawful occupation in Water Street, New York, and\nearning an honest support for his wife and children. In three hours,\nhand-cuffed, in irons, and surrounded by armed men, he was on his way\nto the house of bondage. No time was given him for procuring the aid of\ncounsel. He declared he was free, that his mother was a free woman, and\nhe a free man. But by another provision in the act, it is declared that\n\u201cin no trial or hearing under this act, shall the testimony of such\nalleged fugitive be admitted in evidence.\u201d In all other cases, within\nthe broad compass of the common or statute law of Great Britain or of\nthis country, a party litigant may give evidence pertaining to the\nsuit. In some cases, he may give evidence on the merits; in all cases,\nhe may make affidavit on interlocutory matters. A man who has been in\nthe state prison, a felon scarred with crime, may still make affidavit,\nin his own case, under certain circumstances, though he can testify\nneither for nor against any other person. But an alleged fugitive can\nmake oath to no fact, and under no circumstances, for delay or other\ncause. It would conflict with that \u201csummary manner\u201d in which it is\ndeemed expedient to dispose of human liberty.\n\nLook at this provision under the light of a few facts. In the case\nof _Mahoney_ vs. _Ashton_, (4 Harris & McHenry\u2019s Maryland Reports,)\nthe petitioner for freedom claimed that a maternal ancestor, _four\ngenerations back_, who had been brought over by Lord Baltimore, in the\nearly days of the colony, was free; and, by an extraordinary chain\nof evidence, he traced his descent from that free source. It was a\nclaim which any court in Massachusetts would have sustained without\nhesitation.\n\nNow how much evidence of history, of record, of parol, does the bare\nmention of such a case suggest? Who could have been prepared to try\nit in three hours; ay, as soon as he could be seized and hurried to a\nlawyer\u2019s office?\n\nAmong the alleged fugitives in the \u201cPearl cases,\u201d so called, which\nI assisted in trying in Washington, in the years 1848 and \u201949, was\nthe family of Daniel Bell, consisting of his wife and eight or\nten children. The mother and children had been freed many years\nbefore by deed of manumission, executed by their master in his last\nsickness, and they had been reputed free ever afterwards. Soon after\nthe grantor\u2019s death, the device was started of proving him to be of\n\u201cunsound mind,\u201d and thus reclaiming the family to bondage. But the\nmagistrate who prepared the deed, witnessed its execution, and took\nthe acknowledgment, declared that he stood ready to testify to the\n_competency_ of the grantor, and the validity of the instrument.\nYears passed away and _he_ died. Immediately the heirs claimed the\nfamily as slaves; and, after the loss of the deceased magistrate\u2019s\ntestimony, proved the grantor of \u201cunsound mind,\u201d and so set aside\nthe deed and were adjudged owners of the _chattels_. On the ground\nof newly-discovered evidence, application for a new trial was made;\nbut the family becoming alarmed lest they should be secretly seized\nand sent to the south, attempted to make their escape on board the\n\u201cPearl,\u201d on the night of the 15th of April. Now, suppose that they had\nsucceeded, and that, after arriving in a free state, they had been\nseized and carried before a commissioner, to be tried in this \u201csummary\nmanner,\u201d without even waiting for a crier to open the court, and\ndebarred from making affidavit that, in the city of Washington, there\nexisted evidence of their freedom. I will not waste words to point out\nthe impossibility of their defence, and the certainty of their doom!\nHe that hath ears to hear the cry of the oppressed, let him hear!\n\nA few days before the close of the last session of Congress, I was\ninquired of by a resident in Washington, as to the condition of a\nfamily held as slaves in that city. I found they were free by the laws\nof the District, but they did not know it.\n\nSir, throughout the Southern States, there are thousands and thousands\nof reputed slaves, who, legally, and by the laws of those states, too,\nin which they are held, are as free as the governor of Massachusetts,\nor the chief justice; but, in their enforced and brutish ignorance, the\nvictims do not know it; and should they come to a free state, and be\nthere hunted, and seized, and carried before a commissioner, they would\nbe debarred from taking an oath as to facts which would furnish grounds\nfor a continuance so that their right to freedom might be established.\nBut, under such obstructions and embarrassments, liberty could not be\nextinguished in a sufficiently \u201csummary manner.\u201d\n\nAccording to the constitution of the United States, all _criminals_,\nfrom the least to the greatest, are to be informed of the nature\nand cause of their accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses\nagainst them; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in\ntheir favor; and to have the assistance of counsel in their defence.\nYet here, always in the case of an _innocent_ man, oftentimes in the\ncase of a free man, there is to be no previous notice, no process for\nobtaining witnesses, and no provision for counsel; and while the court\nis forbidden to allow delay, without good cause shown, the party whose\nliberty is at stake cannot make out that cause by his oath; but, with\nthe full knowledge in his own breast that he _is_ free, he must stand\ndumb before the minister of the law that puts on his fetters.\n\nI will not dwell at any length upon those portions of the act which\naffect marshals and deputy marshals. If any man chooses not to hold\noffice under such a law, he can decline to accept it, or resign it.\nIt is, however, clear proof of wicked legislation, when humane and\nconscientious men cannot hold the offices it creates. But the fifth\nsection contains a provision which is atrocious. It makes the marshal\nor his deputy liable for an escape, whether made \u201cwith or _without_\nhis assent,\u201d--that is, _at all events_. Though the alleged fugitive\nshould disable him, though the enemies of the country should capture\nhim, though the act of God should strike him down, though an armed mob\nshould commit a rescue,--yet he is still liable.\n\nAll civilized governments have statutes of limitations. Human welfare\nrequires that claims which have long been voluntarily acquiesced in,\nshould not be revived. Hence our laws bar a right of action, otherwise\nincontrovertible, after that tacit abandonment of which the mere lapse\nof time is proof. Personal rights are most generally abandoned by a six\nyears\u2019 neglect to enforce them. Even real estate may be held, by twenty\nyears\u2019 quiet possession, without other title. Crimes partake of this\nexemption. With the single exception of murder, all crimes are barred\nin Massachusetts by a six years\u2019 delay to prosecute. But the Fugitive\nSlave act knows no mercy or compassion of this kind. Unrelentingly\nit fastens its clutch upon all cases. While life lasts, its fangs\nstrike into the flesh. The alleged slave may have been amongst us for\nfifty years; he may have earned property, be married, and surrounded\nby children. It is all the same. The inexorable certificate of a\ncommissioner remands him to bondage and despair.\n\nThe act not only remands him to bondage, but, under circumstances to\nwhich there will be few exceptions, it orders that he be sent home at\nthe public expense. The constitution says, he shall be \u201cdelivered up.\u201d\nThere the obligation of that instrument ceases. It is only the law that\nadds, he shall be _carried back_. You and I, sir, must help pay the\ncosts of sending a fellow-being into bondage; when we are under no more\nconstitutional obligation to do so, than to pay the expenses of a slave\ndealer who ships his cargoes direct from Africa.\n\nBut the bill has become a law, and the practical question now is,\nhow can the country be exculpated from the crime, and the dishonor.\nFor myself, I do not adopt the doctrine of forcible nullification. I\ntrust I shall never join a mob to resist a law, until I am ready for\nrevolution. The only true and enduring remedy is repeal. Those who\nwould forcibly resist the law, lose half their motive and impulse for\nrepeal; for if we abolish it without repealing it, it will be likely\nto remain upon the statute book an eternal monument of the nation\u2019s\ndisgrace. Let effort never cease, until the jury trial be obtained.\n\nBut this view of civil duty applies only to the _citizen_. It does not\ntouch the fugitive. One liberty the slave always has,--whenever he\ndeems it expedient, he may re-clothe himself in the rights which God\nand nature gave him, and which, though they may be ravished from him,\ncan never be destroyed.\n\nUntil repeal, however, there is one opening for hope. If, as is said by\nMr. Crittenden, in the opinion already cited, \u201cCongress has constituted\na tribunal with _exclusive_ jurisdiction, to determine summarily,\nand without appeal;\u201d and if, as he further says, \u201cthe judgment of\nevery tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction, where no appeal lies, is of\nnecessity _conclusive upon every other tribunal_, AND THEREFORE THE\nJUDGMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL CREATED BY THIS ACT IS CONCLUSIVE UPON ALL\nTRIBUNALS;\u201d then the whole case in all its bearings and relations, its\nsources and its issues, comes before the commissioner; not even the\nsupreme court of the United States can interfere with him; and the\nfirst question for him to \u201chear and determine\u201d is, whether in truth\nthere be any such _law_, whether the whole disgraceful enactment be\nnot unconstitutional and void; and, therefore, whether his first and\nonly duty be not to dismiss the proceedings, and to \u201clet the captive go\nfree.\u201d I am not without hope that such will be the result; and thus,\nthat many conscientious and law-abiding men will be relieved from the\nmoral anxiety and conflict which now oppresses their minds.\n\n                                      Very truly, your obedient servant,\n\n                                                            HORACE MANN.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[15] Since writing the above, I see that a man in New Jersey was so\novercome with fright at the rumor that slave-catchers were in town,\nthat paralysis and death speedily ensued.\n\n\n\n\n                                SPEECH\n\n DELIVERED AT DEDHAM, NOVEMBER 6, 1850, BY SPECIAL REQUEST OF A\n CONVENTION OF WHIG VOTERS OF THE EIGHTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT.\n\n\nGENTLEMEN AND FELLOW-CITIZENS;\n\nHaving been specially invited to appear before this meeting, and\naddress it, my friend Mr. Russell has introduced me to you with many\nkind words; and he has emphatically announced me as \u201cyour old friend.\u201d\nBy so doing, gentlemen, he has touched a living chord in my heart;\nfor, as I look around me, I see many familiar and dear faces, and am\nreminded that, in this town, I spent some of the happiest years of my\nlife. The sight of every object around me awakens remembrances of home.\nRight opposite to us is the court house, in whose forum my feeble voice\nwas first raised, and where, I thank God, it was never raised in behalf\nof the oppressor, nor on the side of any cause which I believed to be\nwrong. Around this church in which we are assembled are the streets\nwhere I used to walk, there is the pew where I used to sit, and all\naround me are persons whom, for years, I saw daily and knew intimately,\nand knew them only to respect. I feel assured that I do meet \u201cold\nfriends,\u201d--true men, who carry their hearts in their hands, and whose\nlives are anchored to their convictions of duty.\n\nGentlemen, it is not without embarrassment that I address you.\nYet I might plead a high example for my course, if I were worthy,\nin any respect, to mention myself in connection with my venerated\npredecessor, who has made the past history of his country so luminous\nwith his wisdom and purity, and the name of this district which he\nrepresented so honored and memorable. Would to God I could carry\nyou to some Pisgah height, and show you, under one view, the past,\nthe present, and the future, as he was wont to do, when, as was his\ncustom, he used to address you on those great topics which employed his\nenergies,--on the principles by which you ought to be guided, and on\nthe dangers to which you were exposed.\n\nWe have fallen, gentleman, on momentous times. Great events have\noccurred, in rapid succession, both in this and in the other\nhemisphere. There seems to have been a grand upheaving of the elements\nof society from its deep foundations. We have been so often astonished\nand amazed, by shock after shock, and convulsion after convulsion, that\nI fear we are beginning to lose our moral sensibility to political\ncatastrophes, however grand or fatal they may be.\n\nYou know there is a spot near the Mississippi River famous for the\nfrequency of its earthquakes. A gentleman who visited there some years\nago, told me that soon after entering a hotel, at a place called New\nMadrid, his attention was suddenly arrested by the rattling of the\ncrockery, the jarring of the household furniture, and the shaking of\nthe chair in which he sat. Starting up in trepidation, he sprang for\nthe door. \u201cO,\u201d said his landlord, \u201cdon\u2019t be alarmed. _It is nothing but\nan earthquake._\u201d These phenomena, it seems, had become so common as to\nhave lost their power of exciting alarm. So, I fear, it is in regard to\nthe late commotions in Europe; and especially in regard to some of the\nmarvellous doings of Congress in our own country. From their astounding\ncharacter, and their rapid succession, I fear we are becoming\ninsensible to their importance, like the inhabitants who dwell at the\nbase of Mount Etna, whom neither the rumbling of the mountain, nor\nthe lava rivers which pour down its side, can awake from their stupor,\nuntil, like Pompeii or Herculaneum, they are buried in the ruins.\n\nIn the old world, things seem already to be settling back into\ntheir former condition, and hopes are darkening into fears. In this\ncountry, I still trust that we shall redeem something of the past,\nand secure the future. Yet the events of the last few months are of\na disheartening character, if any thing could ever dishearten a true\nlover of his country. It has been my fortune and duty to be in the\nmidst of these events. I have watched the tide of battle with sleepless\neye; and when Liberty at last was stricken down, my heart bled with\nhers.\n\nI believe I understand, gentlemen, what you wish me to do on this\noccasion; and therefore I shall endeavor to lay before you, briefly\nbut impartially, the humble part which I, as your representative, have\ntaken in those events which have filled the hearts of good men with\nalarm.\n\nI would, however, premise a few words, in order to show how we have\ncome, step by step, to the fearful position we now occupy.\n\nVery early in our history, as a republic established to maintain\nthe rights of man, an extent of territory was acquired equal to\nall we possessed before; and this addition accrued to the special\nadvantage of those who maintain, as the first great article in their\ncreed, the wrongs of man. The same European wars which enabled\nMr. Jefferson\u2019s administration to purchase Louisiana with fifteen\nmillions of dollars,--a sum mostly paid by the north,--brought the\ncommercial interests of the north also within the destructive sweep\nof those contests, and the non-intercourse act and the embargo were\nthe consequence. These came upon New England at a time when commerce\nwas her only resource. They brought as great a calamity upon the New\nEngland states as it would now be to the south if their whole cotton\ncrop, or to the west if their whole grain crop, were to fail for a\nseries of years. They palsied our industry; and, without industry,\nmen, any where out of Paradise, will be poor. Upon the back of this\ncalamity came the war of 1812, which we bore as well as we could, and\nperformed our full share in carrying the country through it, though\nit cut off our very means of living. That war revealed a lamentable\ncondition of things. It revealed the fact that, notwithstanding our\npolitical independence, we were, in a commercial sense, most deplorably\ndependent. It pointed to a new policy. It put the country upon\nachieving its second independence,--its independence, at least for the\nnecessaries of life, of foreign mechanics, manufacturers, and artisans,\nas it had already achieved its political independence of foreign kings,\naristocracies, and ecclesiastics. It gave birth to the American system,\nin which Calhoun, Lowndes, Cheves, and Clay,--all from the slave\nstates,--took the lead. I mention the first three names, particularly,\nbecause they were from the state of South Carolina. So heartily did\nthey enter into the new policy that they took their seats in Congress\nclad in homespun. They said they would exemplify their principles\nby their garments, and wear them outside as well as inside of their\nbodies. I am sorry their principles lasted but little longer than their\nclothes,--one suit worn out, and all, both without and within, clean\ngone. Even Mr. Madison boasted that his coat was woven in an American\nloom. The south led off in this policy, and New England, whose capital\nhad been wrecked on the ocean, was reluctantly compelled to follow\ntheir lead. This was the origin of the protective tariff, the child of\nSouth Carolina, though, at a later period, adopted by Massachusetts.\nIt was not, however, until 1824, that New England, and Massachusetts\nparticularly, gave in her adhesion to the protective policy. Then\nour people engaged in manufactures. The streams were dammed, and the\nmighty powers of nature were set to spinning and weaving, to dyeing\nand printing, under the guidance of that genius which had been kindled\nand nurtured in our schoolhouses. Those establishments were founded\nwhich have produced so marvellous a change in our household condition,\nsurrounding all with so many comforts, and filling our dwellings with\nso vast a variety of the refinements and luxuries of life. Those of\nyou who have arrived at my age, and are therefore acquainted with the\ncondition of things throughout our country towns thirty years ago, know\nthat the change is almost magical. Though opposed in its inception by\nthe cities and the merchants, yet it has promoted their prosperity not\nless than that of the people.\n\nIn the year 1820, a national question of a great moral character arose.\nThe south, whose policy had before secured a territory as large as\nthat of the original thirteen, sought to extend slavery over its whole\nsurface. Missouri applied to be admitted into the Union as a slave\nstate. The morality and religion of the north thought the time had come\nto arrest the strides of slavery, and they opposed the application.\nEarnest resistance was made. The battle was obstinately fought; but at\nlast, the north, or rather enough recreants of the north yielded, and\nthe day was lost. The south bought or bullied a sufficient number of\nthe invertebrate creatures whom we send to Congress, and triumphed over\nus. This was the first great surrender of principle on the part of the\nnorth, and a fatal surrender it was. We, and humanity, and all that\nis dearest to the heart and thoughts of man, might have achieved the\nvictory but for a few cases of foul treachery to the cause of freedom.\nO, that the retributions for that treason had been so terrible, that\nthe coward motive of fear, if not the angel impulse of humanity, might\nhave deterred all men in after times from ever daring to repeat it.\n\nThe next great struggle was in 1833, when nullification first reared\nits hideous head. At that epoch, the south, and especially South\nCarolina, observing that our capital had been too deeply invested in\nmanufactures to be withdrawn, changed their policy, and sought to\nreap a double harvest,--both of the manufacturing system they had\nintroduced, and of the free trade system they had abandoned. She\ntherefore set about to strangle that offspring of protection to which\nshe had given birth. Even in Virginia, Mr. Madison\u2019s coat had become\nan unconstitutional coat, and the idea of American woollens so wrought\nupon Mr. John Randolph\u2019s gentle affections, that he said he would go a\nmile out of his way to kick a sheep. The South Carolina resistance was\nbeginning to assume a military form. Then occurred a most admirable\nopportunity to test the strength of our government,--to learn and know\nwhether the pillars of this Union are made of granite or of pipe-stems.\nWe had a clear case of right. In the chair of state was a man of Roman\nwill, who would have rejoiced in the opportunity to _see that the\nrepublic received no detriment._ He contemned the nonsense as much as\nhe despised the fraud, of the cry that the Union was in danger. If it\nwas in any danger, he would have saved it in such a way that it would\nnot need saving again every twelvemonth. But the chance was lost. A\ncompromise was brought forward, by which South Carolina consented to\na sort of armed truce, on her part, provided the tariff, though not\ngiven up, should be tapered down almost to nothing. Though, on many\naccounts, I have a high respect for the author of that compromise, yet\nI regard it as the most unfortunate act ever done,--the most fatal\nprecedent ever set by this government. It taught the south the efficacy\nof clamoring; it taught them that there are cases where a Bombastes\nFurioso is as powerful as a Julius C\u00e6sar; and it taught them also,\nnotwithstanding all appearances of solidity and firmness, of what a\ndelicate nervous tissue a money-bag consists.\n\nWhen that compromise law had had time to reach its legitimate issues,\nyou all know the result. A whirlwind of bankruptcy swept over the\nland. Its ravages reached even the humblest portions of society. The\nlaborer suffered even more than the capitalist. The latter suffered\nin his gains, but the former in his bread. All classes perceived the\ncause; and they rallied, almost as one man, to that tremendous effort\nto change the policy of the country, which resulted in the election\nto the presidency of General Harrison. Though, but a few days after\nhis inauguration, the reins of government fell from his lifeless\nhands, yet the tariff of 1842 was the consequence of his election.\nThis restored the drooping fortunes of New England. Then it was, while\nwe were immersed in our business and our money making, that southern\npoliticians addressed themselves to that great scheme of pro-slavery\naggrandizement,--the annexation of Texas. You are all familiar with the\ndetails of this transaction, and it is painful to revert to them. The\nkid was seethed in its mother\u2019s milk. Northern Democrats cast the votes\nwhich gave Texas to the south, and destroyed our own prosperity. Texas\nwas admitted just in season to repeal, by her votes in the Senate, the\ntariff of 1842, by that of 1846. This again put in jeopardy all our\nmeans embarked in manufactures. Would to Heaven that nothing more dear\nthan pecuniary interests had been sacrificed by that measure.\n\nI do not blame the south for seeking an equilibrium with the north;\nbut they do not seek the true equilibrium. If they would sustain\nthemselves in a competition with us in economical affairs, they must\nencourage labor and render it honorable. They must, all of them, labor\nas we do, in one way or another, with the hand or with the head;\nor,--which is the only true way,--with both together. They must build\nschoolhouses to develop the minds of their children, and churches to\ncultivate their morals. If they would only do this, and not attempt to\ncarry every thing by slave-begotten votes, and by adding new states\nto beget more slave votes, they would soon surpass us; for nature has\ndone vastly more for them, in soil and climate and in all the means of\nearthly prosperity, than for us. A superiority obtained in this way,\nwe, as lovers of human happiness, should not repine at, but rejoice in.\n\nThe next struggle in which they engaged for political aggrandizement,\nwas the Mexican war. It could, indeed, hardly be called a\nstruggle,--the north so readily and ignominiously yielded. They wanted\nmore territory. Texas, already gravid with future slave states, was not\nsufficient. And though it was yet somewhat uncertain whether Congress\nwould not interdict the extension of slavery over that country,\neven should they conquer it; still, as they had always triumphed in\ntheir contests with us, they assumed the risk, and trusted to their\nfuture prowess and skill to monopolize the plunder. The territory\nwas conquered; and then, perhaps, the most important question arose\nwhich has ever come before this country since the Declaration of\nIndependence. The most momentous consequences were suspended on the\ndecision of this question. We had, as it were, a creative power put\ninto our hands. We had the shaping of the destinies of half a continent\nintrusted to our keeping. Our authority once exercised, the act would\nbe irrevocable, and the doom of all that region would be fixed, as\nby a decree of Omnipotence. When God gives to the world a generation\nof children, and they are ruined through parental neglect, he gives\nanother generation, that another trial may be made. But if we once\nadmit slavery into those immense regions, comprising all the unsettled\nresidue of this continent, God will give us no new continent on which\nthe error may be retrieved.\n\nNow, on this great question, what has been done? I grieve to say that\nI fear the battle has been lost. If not lost, nothing can save it but\na vigor and an energy on the part of the north, such as they have not\nlately put forth. So far as legislation is concerned, the whole battle\nfield is in possession of the enemy. Let me read a passage from one of\nthe acts of the last session of Congress, which settles this fact. By\nthe law for creating the territorial government of New Mexico, it is\nexpressly provided,--\n\n \u201cThat when admitted as a state, the said territory, or any portion of\n the same, shall be received into the Union, WITH OR WITHOUT SLAVERY,\n as their constitution may prescribe at the time of their admission.\u201d\n\nThe act providing a territorial government for Utah contains a\nprovision precisely similar. In regard to Texas, we have gratuitously\ngiven her a right to form one more slave state than she was authorized\nto do by the resolution of annexation. By the third article of the\nsecond section of that resolution, Texas was authorized to form new\nstates, not exceeding _four_, of which those south of 36\u00b0 30\u00b4 should be\nadmitted, with or without slavery, as their people should elect, while\nin the state or _states_, (and there must, therefore, be at least one,)\nwhich should be formed north of 36\u00b0 30\u00b4, there should be no slavery\nor involuntary servitude except for crime. But by the act of the last\nsession, for establishing the boundary of Texas, though the United\nStates buys up the claim of Texas to all the territory north of 36\u00b0\n30\u00b4, yet it authorizes Texas to form as many slave states out of the\nresidue of her territory, as she could have formed by the resolution of\nannexation, both of slave and free. This is manifest, by the following\nprovision:--\n\n \u201cProvided, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to impair\n or qualify any thing contained in the third article of the second\n section of the joint resolution for annexing Texas to the United\n States, approved March 1, 1845, _either as regards the number of\n states that may hereafter be formed out of the State of Texas, or\n otherwise_.\u201d\n\nHere, then, instead of three states, four are provided for, with full\nconsent that they shall all be slave states. Now, I ask, if this gift\nof a slave state is a trifle to be thrown in like the value of a small\ncoin in the settlement of an account? In some of the pro-slavery\npapers of the north, which have professed to publish this act for the\ninformation of their readers, I have observed that this clause has been\nleft out! They did not dare to trust their readers during the present\npolitical campaign with a knowledge of it.\n\nI know it is said, by here and there an individual, that slavery cannot\ngo into those territories. But it is to be remembered that all the\nsouth, almost as one man, dissent from this proposition. They say it\ncan and shall; and is not their opinion, on such a subject, of greater\nweight than that of any northern man? They threaten to dissolve the\nUnion if slavery be prohibited from going there. Are they such lunatics\nas to dissolve the Union, because we assume to prohibit what nature\nhas already made impossible? Slave states border on those territories,\nand should there be any rush of emigration towards them, as, by the\ndiscovery of mines or other causes there may be, a cloud of slaves\nwould immediately overspread them. If it be said that the local law of\nthe territories prohibits slavery, I reply, so it did in Texas. Slavery\nhad been abolished throughout Mexico, of which Texas was a province.\nBut though slavery was no longer legal there, peonage was. Hence the\nsouthern planters, at least some of them, when about to remove to\nTexas, indented their own slaves to themselves, as peons, so that they\nmight hold them by the Mexican law of peonage, until they should become\nstrong enough to pass a law for slavery. It will be no more difficult\nto introduce slavery into New Mexico and Utah than it was into Texas.\n\nI will not now go back to the questions which agitated the country and\nthe Whig party at the time when General Taylor was nominated for the\npresidency. Whatever I may have thought of him, and of the propriety\nof nominating him, it is but justice to say that I now believe that\nhe was a true man, and an anti-slavery man. He intended honestly to\ncarry out the will of Congress, and execute the laws of his country,\nregardless of slaveholding dictation. He would have crushed the first\nmovement for disunion; or rather, a knowledge of what he would do,\nwould have prevented any such movement. With his own lips, in his own\nhouse, he told me that in case any state should attempt to nullify an\nact of Congress, he should immediately order a naval force to blockade\nits coast; he would allow nothing to pass into, or to come out of, the\nrebellious state; and in six months, said he, it would give up its\nresistance without the shedding of blood. It was President Taylor\u2019s\nplan, as you well know, to leave the adjustment of the slavery question\nto the territories themselves; not that he was not prepared to have\nit settled by Congress, and a prohibition imposed, but because he\nsaw that while a prohibitory act might be passed by the House, it\nwould certainly be rejected by the Senate. He therefore threw himself\nforward to what he knew the condition of things must be, after all the\nineffectual attempts at legislation on the subject had been made; and\nhe adopted that future condition and result of things as his present\nplan of action. Should the northern members of the House prove true\nto their constituencies and their pledges, they would never allow\nthe territories to be organized without the proviso; and the fear of\nsuch a prohibition would exclude slavery from the territories, as\ncertainly as the prohibition itself. Slaveholders would not venture to\ncarry slaves into a country, where, at any moment an act of Congress\nmight emancipate them. And if slavery could only be kept out of the\nterritories while they remained territories, it would, of course, be\nprohibited by the state itself, when the condition of territorial\npupilage should be succeeded by that of state independence. A boy\ntrained up to virtuous resolves until the day he is twenty-one, will\nnot adopt all the vices the day after.\n\nThe recent act has given Texas more than fifty thousand square miles\nof free New Mexican territory, and the promise of ten millions of\ndollars in fourteen years, with interest at five per cent. up to that\ntime; which, at compound interest, makes a prospective grant of twenty\nmillions of dollars. This is done on pretence of discharging debts\nwhich she owed at the time of her annexation. But those debts, at\nthe highest estimate, do not exceed seven millions, so that a clear\ngratuity is left to her of at least three millions in addition to the\ngrant of another slave state. The interest of these three millions\nwill support her government, and keep her supplied with the means of\nfighting the battles of slavery.\n\nThere is something most extraordinary in the claim of Texas to the\nterritory for which she has obtained so extravagant a price. Her\ntitle was not by conquest, nor by purchase, but by an act of her own\nlegislature. She claimed the territory merely because she had extended\nher legislation over it, when she had no more right to legislate for it\nthan for Canada. I have brought with me for your inspection, if any of\nyou desire to see them, a series of maps which illustrate the growth\nof Texas. By Humboldt\u2019s map, of 1804, Texas contained 71,752 square\nmiles. By Tanner\u2019s map, of 1826, it contained 108,097 square miles. By\nAustin\u2019s map, of 1839, it had grown to 179,567 square miles. The late\nclaim of its legislature was the enormous quantity of 325,000 square\nmiles, which the act of Congress cuts down only to 237,321! By its own\nlegislative assumptions it grew from 70,000 to 325,000 square miles.\nBy good husbandry, in this part of the country, we are able to make\ngreater crops grow on the same land, but in Texas they make the land\nitself grow. I think Humboldt himself would have been astonished at any\nsuch geological theory of the uprising of the earth as would enlarge\nan area of 70,000 square miles, in an inland country, into more than\n300,000, in less than fifty years.\n\nBut, fellow-citizens, slavery is already in the territories, whether\nprohibited by God and nature, or not! The line of 36\u00b0 30\u00b4 crosses the\nterritory appropriated to the Indians, which is already full of slaves.\nWhenever the Indian title is extinguished, slavery will be found there\nin possession of the soil. Utah has slaves to-day, and I was informed\nby a gentleman chosen as a delegate from that territory to Congress,\nthat the Mormon religion prescribes nothing on the subject.\n\nI need not now dwell on another act of the last session,--the Fugitive\nSlave Law,--because, as yet, I believe no voice in Massachusetts has\nbeen raised in its defence or palliation. It is an act which might turn\nall of us here, at this moment, into slave hunters; which might break\nup this meeting at the present time, should an officer, clothed with\nthe authority of the United States, appear at that door and command us\nto chase an alleged fugitive, perhaps a native-born freeman, over the\ngraves of our Pilgrim fathers.\n\nStanding here, then, before you, my constituents, to give account of my\nstewardship, I have to say, that with voice and vote, by expostulation\nand by remonstrance, by all means in my power, I have, to the full\nextent of my ability, resisted the passage of all these laws. Why\nhave I done so? Because, in the first place, I felt myself a moral\nand accountable being; and, as such, I could not do otherwise. I have\ndone so, in the second place, because I was your representative, and\nbelieved myself to be acting in conformity with your wishes, with the\nwishes of the Whig party of Massachusetts, and of my constituents\ngenerally. Have I been mistaken? [A volley of noes.]\n\nTo ascertain what were the wishes of the Whig party, and of those\nwho put me in nomination, I shall refer you to a series of the\nresolutions of conventions, and of the declarations of the best\naccredited authorities of that party, on this subject, for years past.\nThe following are among the resolutions of the Whig convention which\nassembled in this town, March, 1848, to nominate a successor to the\nHon. John Quincy Adams. They were unanimously adopted:--\n\n \u201c_Resolved_, That the members of this convention, met together for the\n purpose of nominating a candidate to supply the vacancy existing in\n the eighth congressional district, mourn, in common with the state and\n the nation, the event which has deprived them of the services of that\n eminent son of Massachusetts, whose voice was ever raised in the cause\n of freedom, whose vast and varied powers, more than those of any other\n statesman of his time, were devoted to the service of his country,\n shedding light upon her institutions, and leading her on in the path\n of duty, prosperity, and glory.\n\n \u201c_Resolved_, That the loss of his services in the halls of Congress,\n at this time, is the more deeply to be deplored, when his great weight\n of character, his influence, his talents, his wisdom, his zeal, and\n indomitable energy would have been so benignly felt upon the great\n questions of freedom and slavery, which are to be discussed and\n settled for our newly-acquired domain, stretching from the Gulf of\n Mexico to the Pacific Ocean.\n\n \u201c_Resolved_, That it behooves us to unite upon a candidate to\n represent this district upon the floor of Congress, whose principles\n shall be in consonance with those of his predecessor, whose fidelity\n to the great principles of human freedom shall be unwavering, whose\n voice and vote shall on all occasions be exercised in extending and\n securing liberty to the human race.\u201d\n\nIn September, 1848, the Whig state convention of Massachusetts met at\nWorcester, when the following resolution, among others, reported by the\nHon. Joseph Bell, of Boston, since then president of the Massachusetts\nSenate, was unanimously adopted:--\n\n \u201c_Resolved_, That being impressed with a profound sense of our\n responsibility, as the representatives of the Whigs of Massachusetts,\n that responsibility which attaches to our words, acts, and votes,--we\n cannot fail, on this occasion, as we have never failed on any other\n general assemblage of the Whigs of Massachusetts, to record, in the\n most solemn and deliberate manner, our unqualified opposition to any\n extension of the institution of slavery into our territory, or any\n acquisitions of territory, for the purpose of such extension. On this\n question, the voice of the Whigs of Massachusetts has been unwavering\n and uniform, and never has that voice spoken with higher eloquence\n and power than when our distinguished senator in Congress, speaking\n for himself, and for the whole people of the commonwealth, said, \u2018I\n consent to no further extension of the area of slavery in the United\n States, or to the further increase of slavery representation in the\n House of Representatives.\u2019\u201d\n\nIn September of the same year, another Whig convention assembled at\nthis place, to nominate a candidate for the Thirty-first Congress. My\nviews, as recorded by my votes on all the questions of slavery, and as\nexpressed in my speech, delivered on the 30th of the preceding June,\nwere then before the people. That convention, among other resolutions,\npassed the following, by acclamation:--\n\n \u201c_Resolved_, That we cordially approve of the course of the Hon.\n Horace Mann, and that his position in regard to _free_ principles,\n _free_ labor, and _free_ speech, sustained with such signal ability,\n was but a satisfactory fulfilment of the expectations that we had when\n we nominated him to succeed the illustrious Adams. Regarding the past\n as the best and only honorable pledge of the future, this convention\n unanimously present his name to the people of this district for\n re\u00eblection.\u201d\n\nAt the Whig state convention, held at Springfield, September 29th,\n1847, Mr. Webster said he would consent to no extension of slavery.\nAre not the laws which I have just read a consent?--full consent? He\nclaimed the Wilmot proviso as his \u201cthunder,\u201d and said it had been\nstolen from him. Whether stolen from him, or not, I do not decide.\nHe certainly seems to have lost possession of it; for we now find\nhim thundering on the other side;--yes, from the high Olympus to\nwhich the votes of Massachusetts had elevated him, he has hurled his\nbolts against the dearest interests of his benefactors. But it is\nsaid we have registered these acts of pro-slavery legislation, at the\ndictation of the south, in order to save the Union. When Governor\nDavis was once asked to surrender the rights of humanity to save the\nUnion, he retorted with the question, \u201cHow many times have we got to\nsave the Union?\u201d If we yield to every threat of disunion, we shall\nhave to save the Union whenever any factious and unprincipled member\nof it shall threaten resistance to the laws. Look at the present\nthreat which has been made by Texas. What resources has she wherewith\nto oppose the general government? She has no funds except a school\nfund of $34,000, which her governor, in one of his late messages,\ndeclared to be inviolably devoted to education. To be sure, since\nthis cry of rebellion has been raised, he has said that this fund,\nwhich could be diverted for no useful purpose, might be appropriated\nto the treasonable one of resistance. But look at the amount of this\nfund,--$34,000. Military men tell me it would not support a single\nregiment of mounted rangers more than a month; and all the more\nsettled parts of Texas are at least one month\u2019s marching distance from\nSanta Fe, which is the nearest point of attack. There was never any\nthing more ridiculous than the threats of Texas, that she will take\narmed possession of the eastern side of the Rio Grande, if it be not\nsurrendered to her. She cannot even protect herself against the Indian\ntribes that roam through the regions lying between her and the people\nshe threatens to subjugate. Will the disaffected states of the south\nhelp her by munitions, money, or men? The only states on which she\ncould place any reliance are Mississippi and South Carolina. Could a\nmilitary force be organized, and then marched nearly a thousand, or\nnearly fifteen hundred miles, across the country, to uphold the Texan\nbanner on the borders of the Rio Grande? Were expeditions to be sent by\nsea, could not the mouth of the Mississippi, the harbor of Charleston,\nand that gateway of the Gulf of Mexico, which lies between the capes of\nFlorida and the West India Islands; ay, the whole Texan coast itself,\nbe blockaded and guarded, so as to make a hostile irruption into New\nMexico impossible? Talk about Texan resistance to the government of\nthese United States, my fellow-citizens; it is so ridiculous that\nnothing can be conceived which is not less ridiculous, and which would,\ntherefore, by the very comparison, relieve the supposition of a portion\nof its nonsense. This surrendering to the threat of disunion, is like\nthe foolish mother who gave her boy a sugar-plum to stop swearing.\nPresently he belched out a stream of profanity; and when the mother\nasked him why he did so, he said, \u201cI want more sugar-plums.\u201d General\nTaylor embraced the whole subject in a short sentence when he said he\nwas more afraid of Texan bonds than of Texan bayonets. Their bonds\nhave been ten thousand times more powerful than their bayonets in\nconsummating this disastrous compromise.\n\nBut it is not only in conventions of the Whig party that sentiments\nhave been expressed wholly incompatible with the great surrenders\nwe have made. Such sentiments have emanated from more authoritative\nsources. They are the voice of our commonwealth,--the repeated voice,\nreiterated again and again, through a series of years. Let me select\na few from among the many resolves of the Massachusetts legislature,\ncovering the time, and preceding the time, that I have been in\nCongress. The following was passed in 1847:--\n\n \u201c_Resolved_, _unanimously_, That the legislature of Massachusetts\n views the existence of human slavery within the limits of the United\n States as a great calamity, an immense moral and political evil,\n which ought to be abolished, as soon as that end can be properly and\n constitutionally attained, and that its extension should be uniformly\n opposed by all good and patriotic men throughout the Union.\u201d\n\nAgain, in 1849, the legislature of Massachusetts\n\n \u201c_Resolved_, That when Congress furnishes governments for the\n territories of California and New Mexico, it will be its duty to\n establish therein the fundamental principles of the ordinance of\n seventeen hundred and eighty-seven, upon the subject of slavery, to\n the end that the institution may be perpetually excluded therefrom\n beyond every chance and uncertainty.\u201d\n\nAnd again, during this present year, and not six months ago, the same\ngeneral court passed the following resolve. I might read from the\nprinted volume of the \u201cActs and Resolves of 1850;\u201d but I choose to\nread from _this official circular_ which I hold in my hand, which is\nattested by the secretary of state, and was sent to me at Washington,\nas to all the other members of Congress from Massachusetts, so that we\nmight be informed of the views of the state government, as well as of\nour respective constituencies, on this important subject:--\n\n \u201c_Resolved_, That the people of Massachusetts earnestly insist\n upon the application by Congress of the ordinance of 1787, with\n all possible sanctions and solemnities of law, to the territorial\n possessions of the Union in all parts of the continent, and for all\n coming time.\n\n \u201c_Resolved_, That the people of Massachusetts, in the maintenance of\n these their well known and _invincible_ principles, expect that all\n their officers and representatives will adhere to them at all times,\n on all occasions, and under all circumstances.\u201d\n\nAnd yet, in six months, we are called upon to support these laws.\nIs this \u201call coming time\u201d? Are these \u201cinvincible principles\u201d of the\nMassachusetts Whig legislature to melt, like wax, when touched by the\nbreath of party? They notified me, under their seal and sign-manual,\nthat they expected \u201call their officers and representatives to adhere\nto them, at all times, on all occasions, and under all circumstances.\u201d\nAnd yet, before six months have elapsed, some of the very men who\nvoted to give me such instructions, or injunctions, or whatever you\nplease to call them, having discarded their own solemn asseverations of\nprinciple, now upbraid me because I, too, will not be recreant to them.\nIs this what you are to expect from men whom you have elected by your\nvotes, and to whom the momentous interests of millions, and the honor\nof the country, have been confided, that their vows should be like\nthose of perfidious lovers, who swear \u201ceternal fidelity\u201d--during the\nhoney moon? We cannot plead the excuse, in regard to these resolves,\nwhich a certain hearer of Whitfield did, for appearing unmoved at one\nof his pathetic discourses, while all others were melted to tears. When\nasked why he, too, did not weep, he replied that \u201che did not belong\nto that parish.\u201d We do belong to this parish. These are the \u201cacts and\nresolves\u201d of our own state, fresh and unsullied from the mint. We\ncannot deny their genuineness. If we impute fraud any where, it must\nbe to the motives of those who passed them. Hear, too, what Governor\nBriggs says on this same subject, in his last inaugural address:--\n\n \u201cEntertaining no doubt of the constitutional power of Congress to\n exclude slavery from its own territories, and believing that such\n exclusion is demanded by the highest principles of morality and\n justice, she never can consent to its extension over one foot of\n territory where it now is not. If the other free states concur with\n her in this resolution, the thing will be done, and consequences left\n to themselves.\u201d\n\nThus have the Whig party in this state, and its executive, pledged\nthemselves not to extend slavery \u201cone foot.\u201d How many feet in the six\nhundred thousand square miles, into which the legislation of the last\nCongress permits slavery to enter?--which legislation the Whig party is\nnow called upon to indorse,--that is, how many myriad pledges do they\nrequire us to break?\n\nLet me now quote from another high Whig authority,--General James\nWilson, of New Hampshire. For many years, probably no man has been\nconsidered a more authoritative expounder of Whig sentiment. He has\nbeen employed by the party, or the organs of the party, to traverse the\ncountry for the advocacy of Whig principles, and has been every where\nlistened to with great acceptance. In Congress, he spoke as follows:--\n\n \u201cI hold that Congress is bound to take care of the territories, and\n so execute the trust as will best promote the interests of those who\n may hereafter be entitled to the beneficial use. As a member of this\n Congress, I feel that I sustain a part of that responsibility, and it\n is my desire to acquit myself worthily in meeting it. I desire so to\n acquit myself that my own conscience will not upbraid me, and that\n when I shall pass away, no reproach shall fall upon me, or my children\n after me, for my acts here upon this momentous question. I have, sir,\n an only son, now a little fellow, whom some of this committee may have\n seen here. Think you that when I am gone, and he shall grow up to\n manhood, and shall come forward to act his part among the citizens of\n the country, I will leave it to be cast in his teeth, as a reproach,\n that his father voted to send slavery into those territories? No!\n O, no! I look reverently up to the Father of us all, and fervently\n implore him to spare that child that reproach. May God forbid it!\n\n \u201cI have said that it is characteristic of the slave power to\n accomplish all of its political purposes in this government. I must\n now say that the power and influence of slavery over the action\n of Congress is impaired, if not entirely gone. [What an infinite\n mistake!] I make this declaration, not because I have any confidence\n in the politicians of the day. No, sir, I have none whatever. The\n politicians are just as ready now to betray their constituents as\n they ever have been. I am sorry to say there is evidence enough of\n this. My confidence is in the people. They have taken the matter into\n their own hands; they have brought themselves into order of battle\n and line, without the word of command from any political leader. Here\n they stand, with front rank, and rear rank, and rank of file-closers\n in position, with bayonets at a charge. They have spoken to their\n representatives in a voice of thunder, and warned them against\n abandoning their interests. They have bid them do it at their peril.\n The constituents have challenged their representatives to betray their\n trusts, and skulk and retreat upon them, _if they dared_.\n\n \u201cAnd, sir, the constituencies have spoken \u2018upon honor.\u2019 They are\n determined, and will execute their purposes. There was a time, when,\n if the slave power had any special work to be done, and wanted a\n northern man to do it, they hunted him up from New Hampshire. Little,\n unfortunate New Hampshire was called upon to furnish the scavenger to\n do the dirty work. That day, thank God, has gone by, and it will not\n come again very soon. [Wait a short year, Mr. Wilson, and see who the\n Hazael will be.]\n\n \u201cThe north are not disposed to trespass or interfere with the rights\n of the south. Where slavery exists within the states, the northern\n people claim no right to interfere with it by any political action of\n this government. The people ask no action by Congress on the subject\n of slavery within the states. But gentleman need not ask me for my\n vote to extend the institution of slavery one single inch beyond its\n present boundaries. Did I say an inch, Mr. Chairman? Ay, I would not\n extend it one sixteen-thousandth part of a hair\u2019s breadth. I would\n not extend it, because it would be doing an irretrievable wrong to\n my fellow-man; because it would be doing irreparable wrong to those\n territories for which we are now to legislate; because it would be\n doing violence to nature and to nature\u2019s God; and because it would be\n a wicked and wanton betrayal of the trust confided to me by the free,\n intelligent constituency which has done me the honor to send me here.\n\n \u201cIt shall not be in the power of any man to shake a menacing finger at\n me, and look me in the face with a jibe of contempt, and say to me, in\n the insulting language of a former representative from Virginia, [Mr.\n RANDOLPH,] \u2018we have conquered you, and we will conquer you again; we\n have not conquered you by the black slaves of the south, but by the\n white slaves of the north.\u2019 No, sir, that remark shall never apply\n to me. Gentlemen need not talk to me, or attempt to frighten me, by\n threats of dissolution of the Union. Sir, I do not permit myself to\n talk, or even think of the dissolution of the Union; very few northern\n men do. We all look upon such a thing as impossible. But, sir, sir, if\n the alternative should be presented to me of the extension of slavery,\n or the dissolution of the Union, I would say, rather than extend\n slavery, let the Union, ay, the Universe itself be dissolved! Never,\n never will I raise my hand or my voice to give a vote by which it can\n or may be extended. As God is my judge, I cannot, I will not be moved\n from the purpose I have now announced.\u201d\n\nAnd yet this same General Wilson did vote for every one of these laws,\nexcepting, perhaps, the last, which passed in the night,--fit darkness\nfor so dark a deed,--and the next morning he was off for California.\nHow can such a man stop this side of Botany Bay? Now, fellow-citizens,\ndid you want me to disgrace myself, and you, and human nature, too,\nby such an act of flagrant apostasy? [A crash of noes.] Yet if these\nmeasures are adopted and sustained by the Whig party, and if those men\nwho committed these nefarious deeds are justified and upheld by you,\nthen how are you less guilty than General Wilson?[16]\n\nLet me quote a passage or two from a speech delivered by one of my\ncolleagues in Congress, the Hon. George Ashmun, who has, I believe,\nusually been considered pretty good Whig authority. In a speech made by\nhim on the 27th of last March, referring to the subjects of slavery in\nthe territories and the recaption of alleged fugitive slaves, he said,--\n\n \u201cBut I am bound to say, however, if the south persist in uniting\n to demand the entrance of slavery into our free territories, I,\n for one, must conform to what are, at the same time, the views of\n my constituents and the convictions of my own judgment; and if I\n am driven to the alternative, I shall not hesitate to vote for the\n proviso.\u201d--_App. to Cong. Globe_, _1st Sess. 31st Congress_, p. 401.\n\n \u201cWhile I desire to do every thing which may protect the rights of\n property which are guarantied to citizens of the slave states, I\n cannot consent to sacrifice the rights of liberty which belong to\n the citizens of the free states. To secure both these ends, I see no\n other mode than to have those rights settled before legal tribunals,\n _by the verdicts of juries and the judgments of courts_.... When\n a colored man is seized in Massachusetts upon a claim that he is\n the property of a citizen of a slave state, and he claims to be a\n citizen of Massachusetts, and invokes the protection of the laws of\n Massachusetts, is it to be said he may be summarily sent away by the\n decree of any one magistrate without the privilege of vindicating his\n title to his citizenship before a jury of the country? Why, sir, it\n could not be done in the case of a horse escaped from one state to\n another, and found in the possession of a citizen. It could not be\n taken by strong hand,--by force. The claimant must resort to process\n of law. He must sue out his writ of replevin, and the title of the\n defendant must be tried where he lives. That defendant may be a negro;\n and surely, if without a trial by jury you may not take that which\n he claims to be his property, you can hardly claim to seize the man\n himself, and carry him away, before his title to freedom has been\n tested by a tribunal, as respectable, at least, and as safe, as that\n which settles a title to his horse.\u201d--_Ib._ p. 399.\n\nAnd another of my colleagues, [Mr. DUNCAN,] even as late as the 7th of\nJune last, emphatically declared, in the House of Representatives, as\nfollows:--\n\n \u201cIf territorial bills are presented for the government of New Mexico\n and Utah, I shall vote for the exclusion of slavery from those\n territories.\n\nLet me fortify these citations by another from one of the acknowledged\nleaders of the Whig party,--the Hon. Rufus Choate:--\n\n \u201cOn all the great questions of the day, but just slavery; on executive\n power, on internal improvement, on the protection of labor, on peace,\n and the constitution, we mean to remain the same party of Whigs, one\n and indivisible, from Maine to Louisiana,--one vast incorporation of\n consentaneous feeling throughout the land; and upon this question\n alone we always differ from the Whigs of the south; and on that one we\n propose simply to vote them down.\u201d[17]\n\nI will quote a passage also from a recent letter of the Hon. Zeno\nScudder, late a Whig president of the Massachusetts Senate, and now a\ncandidate of the Whig party for Congress, in District No. 10:--\n\n \u201cI was at the Springfield convention when Mr. Webster said, \u2018Not\n another inch of slave territory; _no, not one inch_!\u2019 By the aid of\n his remarks on that occasion, I was confirmed in the views which I had\n before entertained, and have as yet seen no reason to change them.\n\n \u201cIn 1847, I had the honor and pleasure of recording my \u2018yea\u2019 in favor\n of the resolves \u2018concerning the existence and extension of slavery\n within the jurisdiction of the United States,\u2019 and \u2018concerning\n the Mexican war and the institution of slavery,\u2019 which passed the\n legislature of last year; and had I been a member of that body at\n its last session, I should have given my support to the resolve\n \u2018concerning slavery,\u2019 which was then passed.\n\n \u201cWhen I recorded my \u2018yea,\u2019 and advocated the resolves of 1847, I did\n not suppose them to be _idle words_, written out to be bandied about\n and declaimed upon in Massachusetts, and be _laid snugly away_, if\n ever I should depart the jurisdiction. I supposed them to involve\n great principles of human freedom, which were to be applied throughout\n the length and breadth of our country, whenever and wherever the time\n and place might present legitimate opportunities therefor.\u201d\n\nAt the Whig state convention held at Springfield in 1847, a resolution\nwas submitted by Dr. Palfrey, \u201cthat the Whigs of Massachusetts will\nsupport no men for the offices of president and vice-president, but\nsuch as are known by their acts, or declared opinions, to be opposed to\nthe extension of slavery;\u201d and Mr. William Dwight, then of Springfield,\nis reported to have said, \u201cYou cannot vote for a candidate not known to\nbe opposed to slavery extension; _it would be guilt_.\u201d\n\nBut, fellow-citizens, I might go on citing authorities of this kind\nuntil sunset;--nay, until sunlight should come round again, and still\nleave the greater part of my resources untouched. I will refer you but\nto one more,--a resolution passed at the late Whig state convention,\nonly a few days ago, which was as follows:--\n\n \u201c_Resolved_, That Massachusetts avows her unalterable determination\n to maintain all the principles and purposes she has in times past\n affirmed, and re\u00e4ffirmed, in relation to the extension of slavery;\n and the measure of success which has attended her exertions is a new\n incentive to continue and persevere in all constitutional efforts,\n till the great and good work shall be accomplished and perfected.\u201d\n\nAnd now, gentlemen, let me ask you whether my action has been in\naccordance with these sentiments, as expressed by the highest acts of\nthe party and the most solemn resolutions of the state? [An acclamation\nof yeas.]\n\nHere, fellow-citizens, I come to the test question: Did we, as true\nWhigs, and as honorable men, make all these declarations in sincerity,\nmeaning to stand by them to the end; or was it done, from time to time,\nto beguile a portion of our fellow-citizens of their votes, on the vile\ndoctrine that \u201call is fair in politics\u201d? Were we frank and in earnest,\nor were we hollow and fraudulent?\n\nI know very well what influences have been brought to bear upon us. I\nknow we are a people intent on thriving, and on worldly prosperity.\nEvery young man amongst us sets out in life determined to better his\ncondition. This, to me, is no cause of regret, but of rejoicing. If\nthe spirit of thrift does not transgress the limits of honor and\nduty, it is not only right but laudable. The animal wants of man\nmust be supplied before he will develop his intellectual or moral\npowers. You may find individuals who will be virtuous amid want and\nprivation,--heroes in virtue;--but a virtuous community in rags and\nhunger, you will never find. We must put society in a condition of\nphysical comfort, before it will rise to mental excellence. I am\nan ardent advocate, therefore, of all measures tending to increase\nthe wealth of the country; but on this ever-present and everlasting\ncondition, that it is done without a sacrifice of principles. Any\nenlargement of business, any increase of profits, any augmentation of\nwealth, gained by a community through a dereliction from principle, is\nas insecure and as ignominious as the gains of an individual through\nfraud, embezzlement, or peculation.\n\nFor the purpose of rewarding our native labor, therefore, I am for a\nprotective tariff. Perhaps some persons may be here present who dissent\nfrom this opinion; but I came here to avow, and not to conceal my\nsentiments and acts. It has always seemed to me that we must protect\nour labor against foreign labor, or our laborers at home will fall\nto the condition of the pauper laborers abroad. In Manchester in\nEngland, and Glasgow in Scotland, and many other manufacturing towns\nin Great Britain, there are thousands of wretched, degraded female\noperatives, who earn scarcely a shilling a day. After their day\u2019s work\nis done, they visit the dram-shops, roam the streets till midnight,\nand if not invited away by vicious men, they huddle by scores into\nfilthy lodging-houses, where they sleep, men and women promiscuously,\ntill morning summons them back to their tasks. Now where labor is so\nscantily paid, fabrics can be produced more cheaply; and if these\nfabrics can be sent into this country, free of duty, they will\nundersell ours, until the prices of our labor and the condition of our\nlaborers are reduced to theirs. Nothing is left to protect our industry\nbut the cheaper freight of the materials, and that is too trifling a\ncompensation to be of any account. This is the whole philosophy of the\nmatter, and to me it has always seemed unassailable.\n\nIt has been thought and said that if we would yield to the south on\nthe slavery question, they would yield to us on the tariff question.\nWe have surrendered the slavery question. Have we got the tariff? Have\nwe got any thing but disgrace in the eyes of the civilized world? To\nme, it seems that our chance for a tariff is greatly diminished. For\nthe majority which is necessary to enable us to pass a tariff law,\nwe must depend on our opponents. By our yielding to the south, their\nparty discipline has been immensely strengthened, and it is now more\ndifficult than ever to obtain their votes for any measure conducive to\nnorthern interests. Besides, they now say they will retain the tariff\nquestion as an open one, in order to keep us on our good behavior. What\nhave those now to say for themselves, who beguiled a portion of our\npeople into the delusion, that they might safely barter human rights\nfor pecuniary advantages, and have left to their dupes both the loss of\nthe advantages, and the disgrace of abandoning their principles!\n\nBut an appeal is made to us to ratify this surrender to the slave\npower, because of our love for the Union. And is our love for the Union\nalways to be converted, or rather perverted, into a pro-slavery motive\nof action? I join you all most cordially, I join any one, in avowing my\nregard for the Union, and my resolution to stand by it. But the Union\nought to be so used as to extend, and not to abridge human welfare.\nIf, in order to maintain the Union, we must sacrifice all the great\nobjects for which the Union was formed,--the establishment of justice,\nthe promotion of the general welfare, and the securing of the blessings\nof liberty to ourselves and our posterity,--then the Union no longer\nrepresents a beneficent divinity but a foul Dagon, and is worthy to be\nbroken in pieces. A Union which must be secured by such sacrifices as\nhave been lately made in New York, in behalf of the so called \u201cUnion\nMeeting,\u201d abolishes the benefits it was designed to secure. Eight\nthousand signatures were obtained for calling that meeting; but to\nprocure them, whole streets were scoured, and men were threatened with\nthe publication of their names, and the consequent loss of southern\ncustom, if they refused to join in the call. Many were obliged to pay\n_hush money_ to prevent exposure. The New York idea is slavery and\nfree trade. Here, it is slavery and tariff. Both cities cannot get the\nprice of their surrender of principle.\n\nNo, fellow-citizens, the more we yield to the demands of the south in\norder to save the Union, the more we may and must. Their longing eyes\nare already fixed on Cuba. There is more probability and more danger\nto-day that Cuba will be annexed to this government within five years,\nthan there was of Texan annexation five years before that event took\nplace. I lately said to a Louisianian, \u201cYou will soon be for making a\nslave state of Cuba.\u201d \u201cNo,\u201d said he, \u201cwe mean to make two of that.\u201d\n\nGentlemen, I have already occupied your attention too long. But I am\nconstrained to make a few brief remarks on a subject I would gladly\navoid. The occasion of your present meeting is known to all. Two\nyears ago, I was nominated by the Whigs of this district as their\ncandidate for the seat in Congress which I now hold. By the favor\nof my fellow-citizens of all parties, I received more than eleven\nthousand out of about thirteen thousand votes cast at that election.\nI felt assured at that time, that I agreed in all essential articles\nof political faith with those who gave me their support, otherwise I\nshould not have accepted the office at their hands. I have endeavored\nfaithfully, and according to the best of my ability, to carry out the\nwishes which they then expressed, and which they well knew that I held.\nYet, during the last week, a Whig convention, (so called,) assembled\nin this place to nominate a candidate for the thirty-second Congress;\nand, after some close voting, they nominated as my successor, the Hon.\nSamuel H. Walley,--a gentleman, I am happy to say, towards whom I have\nalways sustained relations of personal kindness. In the language of the\nday, that convention threw me overboard. Now it is known to my whole\ncircle of private friends, that, as soon as Congress passed these\npro-slavery measures to which I have adverted, my determination was\nformed not to be a candidate for re\u00eblection. I resolved to return to\nthe people, and labor at home instead of at Washington, in the cause\nof human freedom. But it was soon given out, in certain influential\nquarters, that I should not be returned to Congress again, and that I\nshould be stigmatized by a rejection. Unsurpassed efforts, as you all\nknow, have been made to carry out this threat; even the Secretary of\nState of the United States has made it the occasion for a practical\ncontradiction of all he had ever said against bringing the influence\nof the government to bear upon the freedom of elections; and the\nproceedings of the last week\u2019s convention were the first instalment\nof the penalty which I am to suffer for defending human rights and\nunmasking their betrayers. It is said that the convention of last week\nwas a packed convention; that it did not represent the wishes of the\npeople. Decorum forbids _me_ to make any such charge, even though it\nwere probably true. In a few days, this point will be settled by the\nsovereign of us all, at the ballot-box.[18]\n\nBut two or three points, to which I wish to call your attention, are\ncontained in the address put forth by the meeting I have referred\nto. Let me premise, however, that I take no exception to the fact\nthat my acts and opinions should be made the subject of examination\nand criticism by any body of men, or by any man. It is better that\nanimadversion should be wrong than that it should not be free. Like\nAristides, I would write the vote that should banish me, rather than\nto fetter or control the voter\u2019s will. And now, having laid down these\nprinciples in favor of free speech for others, I proceed to exemplify\nthem for myself.\n\nThe first charge preferred against me, in the address, is, that I said,\nin a letter dated on the 3d of May last, and addressed to a portion\nof my constituents,[19] that I \u201csympathized on different points with\ndifferent parties, but was exclusively bound to none.\u201d Upon this, the\naddress remarks, \u201cIf we understand his meaning, it is ... that he\ncannot be our champion and defend our cause, as our true representative\nshould, whenever and wherever called upon.\u201d No, I reply to this, I\nwill not promise beforehand to be any man\u2019s \u201cchampion,\u201d nor to defend\nany man\u2019s \u201ccause,\u201d \u201c_whenever and wherever called upon_.\u201d This would\nbe to proffer championship and allegiance to men and measures whether\nthey were right or wrong. If any man offers to vote for me on such\nconditions, I deny him my assistance and disdain his support. Perhaps\nI do not know what I was made for; but one thing I certainly never was\nmade for, and that is, to put principles on and off, at the dictation\nof a party, as a lackey changes his livery at his master\u2019s command.\n\nAnother remark in the address is, that the compromise measures,\nso called, excepting the fugitive slave law, were \u201cwise, and that\nthey gave to the free states all they could reasonably ask.\u201d What a\nstultification, my friends, is this, of ourselves, of our party, and of\nevery department of our state government, for the last ten years. What\nhave you been doing, but resolving, contending, and placing your words\nand deeds upon the historical records of the state and the nation,\nagainst the identical measures now declared to be \u201cwise,\u201d and all for\nwhich the free states \u201ccould reasonably ask\u201d? I leave this point with\na single remark. The address excepts the fugitive slave law from the\nmeasures it commends. Before another year is past, will not that most\nexecrable act in modern legislation be palliated or adopted by those\nwho voted for this address?\n\nA third objection to my position is, that I regard the question of\nthe extension of slavery into our territories as paramount to those\nquestions of a pecuniary character, on which we desire to obtain the\nfavorable action of the government. Let this objection against me have\nits full force. I admit it, in all its length and breadth. I do regard\nthe question of human freedom for our wide-extended territories, with\nall the public and private consequences dependent upon it, both now and\nin all futurity, as first, foremost, chiefest among all the questions\nthat have been before the government, or are likely to be before it.\nWhen temporary and commercial interests are put in competition with\nthe enduring and unspeakably precious interests of freedom for a whole\nrace, of liberty for a whole country, and of obedience to the will of\nthe Creator, my answer is, \u201cSeek ye first the kingdom of God and his\nrighteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you.\u201d\n\nIn an address delivered by Mr. Choate, in 1848, he declared the slavery\nquestion to be of \u201ctranscendent importance;\u201d and for this sentiment\nhe was universally applauded. Wherein does \u201c_paramount_ importance\u201d\nso differ from \u201c_transcendent_ importance,\u201d that the one is to be\napplauded while the other is condemned?\n\nLet me call your attention to one other remark in the address, and I\nwill leave it. It suggests that my course in Congress on the slavery\nquestions has been unacceptable to the south, and that we ought to send\na representative who will conciliate them and obtain their good will.\nFellow-citizens, do you suppose that any man can be true to the memory\nof the Pilgrim fathers, and to the love of liberty they bequeathed us,\nand at the same time true to the spirit of the Cavaliers, and to the\nwishes of their slave-owning posterity? Eighteen hundred years ago, it\nwas said that no man can serve two masters; but the cupidity of modern\ntimes proposes the solution of a problem which Christ declared to be\nimpossible. My opinion is, that the cause of all our present calamity,\nand of the enduring dishonor of the late measures, is this very desire\nto conciliate southern favor, instead of giving a manful defence to\nnorthern rights.\n\nFinally, fellow-citizens, it is our fortune to live during a great\nhistoric crisis in the affairs of the world. This is the age of the\nuseful arts; of discoveries and inventions, which are filling with\nwealth the garners and the coffers of men. It is the age of commerce,\nof profit, of finance. One part of our nature is intensely stimulated.\nLet us beware of the effect of this stimulus upon that nobler portion\nof our being, which no splendor of opulence nor profusion of luxuries\ncan ever satisfy; which demands allegiance to God, and justice and\nhumanity towards our fellow-men; and which must have them, or die the\nsecond death. We may be poor; but let us deprecate and forefend the\nmost calamitous of all poverties,--a poverty of spirit. We may be\nsubjected to great sacrifices; but let us sacrifice every thing else,\nnay, life itself, before we sacrifice our principles. I commend to you\nthe language of the good Bishop Watson, who, when tempted to stifle the\nexpression of his convictions through the hope of kingly patronage,\nreplied, that it was \u201cBetter to seek a fortuitous sustenance from the\ndrippings of the most barren rock in Switzerland, with freedom for his\nfriend, than to batten as a slave at the most luxurious table of the\ngreatest despot in the world.\u201d\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[16] Mr. Wilson has since been rewarded by the administration with a\nlucrative office in California.\n\n[17] See, also, _ante_, p. 256.\n\n[18] The people settled the question by electing Mr. Mann by a majority\nover all other candidates.--_Publishers._\n\n[19] See _ante_, p. 237.\n\n\n\n\n                                SPEECH\n\n DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES, IN\n COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON THE STATE OF THE UNION, FEBRUARY 28, 1851,\n ON THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW.\n\n\nMR. CHAIRMAN;\n\nSome time ago, I prepared a few comments upon those prominent measures\nof the last session, which have since arrested the attention of all\nthe lovers of constitutional liberty, and of moral and religious men,\nthroughout the civilized world. I am unwilling to suffer the present\nsession to close without expressing the reflections I have formed;\nbecause I deem it but a reasonable desire that my opinions should be\nplaced upon the records of the very Congress to whose measures they\nrefer.\n\nDoes any one ask what benefit I anticipate from a discussion of this\nsubject at the present moment? I answer, this benefit at least: that of\nentering a solemn protest against a grievous wrong, and of placing upon\nthe tablets of my country\u2019s history, what I believe to be the views of\na vast majority of my constituents, in common with the vast majority of\nthe people of Massachusetts.\n\nSome of those compromise measures are destined to be of great historic\nimportance. They will be drawn into precedent. When, in evil days,\nfurther encroachments are meditated against human rights, these old\nmeasures will be cited as a sanction for new aggressions; and, in\nmy view, they will always be found broad enough, and bad enough, to\ncover almost any nameable assault upon human liberty. When bad men\nwant authority for bad deeds, they will only have to go back to the\nlegislation of Congress, in 1850, to find an armory full of the weapons\nof injustice.\n\nSir, legislative precedents are formidable things. If created without\nopposition, and especially if acquiesced in without complaint, they\nbecome still more formidable. Now, if there were no other reasons for\nreviving this subject at the present session of Congress, this alone\nwould be an ample justification,--it forefends the argument from\nacquiescence.\n\nWhen several of these measures were passed, and particularly when one\nof the most obnoxious and criminal of them all was passed,--I mean\nthe Fugitive Slave bill,--this House was not a deliberative body.\nDeliberation was silenced. Those who knew they could not meet our\narguments, choked their utterance. The previous question, which was\noriginally devised to curb the abuse of too much debate, was perverted\nto stop all debate. The floor was assigned to a known friend of the\nbill, who after a brief speech in palliation of its enormities, moved\nthe previous question; and thus we were silenced by force, instead\nof being overcome by argument. For, sir, I aver, without fear of\ncontradiction, that the bill never could have become a law, had its\nopponents been allowed to debate it, or to propose amendments to it.\nFor the honor of the country, therefore, at the present time, and for\nthe cause of truth hereafter, it is important that the hideous features\nof that bill, which were then masked, should be now unmasked. The\narguments which I then desired and designed to offer against it, I mean\nto offer now. Those arguments have lost nothing of their weight by this\nenforced delay, and I have lost nothing of my right to present them.\n\nMr. Chairman, I feel none the less inclined to discuss this question,\nbecause an order has gone forth that it shall not be discussed.\nDiscussion has been denounced as agitation, and then it has been\ndictatorially proclaimed that \u201cagitation must be put down.\u201d Sir,\nhumble as I am, I submit to no such dictation, come from what quarter\nor from what numbers it may. If such a prohibition is intended to be\nlaid upon me personally, I repel it. If intended to silence me as the\nrepresentative of the convictions and feelings of my constituents,\nI repel it all the more vehemently. In this government, it is not\ntolerable for any man, however high, or for any body of men, however\nlarge, to prescribe what subjects may be agitated, and what may not\nbe agitated. Such prescription is at best but a species of lynch\nlaw against free speech. It is as hateful as any other form of that\nexecrable code; and I do but express the common sentiment of all\ngenerous minds, when I say that for one, I am all the more disposed\nto use my privilege of speech, when imperious men, and the sycophants\nof imperious men, attempt to ban or constrain me. In Italy, the pope\ndecides what books may be read; in Austria, the emperor decides what\nbooks may be written; but we are more degraded than the subject of\npontiff or C\u00e6sar, if we are to be told what topics we may discuss. If\nthe subjects of a despotic government are bound to be jealous even of\nthe poor privileges which they possess, how sensitive, how \u201ctremblingly\nalive all o\u2019er\u201d ought we to be at these threatened encroachments\nupon freedom of speech and freedom of thought. I think that those\nwho say so much about recalling us to a sense of our constitutional\nobligations, would do well to remember, that the very first article\nof the amendments to the constitution secures the freedom of speech\nand the freedom of the press. By the common consent of this country,\nmanifested in all forms for more than half a century, the old alien and\nsedition law has been condemned. Has that law been condemned for fifty\nyears in order to make our shame more conspicuous by its revival under\ncircumstances of intolerable aggravation? Sir, I hold treason against\nthis government to be an enormous crime; but great as it is, I hold\ntreason against free speech and free thought to be a crime incomparably\ngreater.\n\nIf it be just and heroic to rebel against all arbitrary invasions\nof free thought and free expression, then is it not proportionably\nbase and dastardly to utter menaces, or threaten social or political\ndisabilities for the unconstrained exercise of these birthrights of\nfreemen? On the face of it, it must be a bad cause which will not bear\ndiscussion. Truth seeks light instead of shunning it. He convicts\nhimself of wrong who refuses to hear the arguments of his opponent. It\nwas well said by Montesquieu, that \u201cthe enjoyment of liberty, and even\nits support and preservation, consists in every man\u2019s being allowed\n_to speak his thoughts and lay open his sentiments_.\u201d Wherefore, then,\nin a country hitherto reputed to be free, are we told that discussion\nmust be stopped, and agitation must be put down? It seems as if,\nwhen a freeman debases his soul by lending himself to the defence of\nslavery, God punishes him on the spot by demoralizing his own nature\nwith that spirit of tyranny which belongs to slavery. Wherein consists\nthe advantage of a republican government over a despotism, if the\nfreedom of speech and of the press, which can be strangled in the\none by arbitrary command, can be stifled in the other by obloquy and\ndenunciation?\n\nIt is remarkable, too, that of all the \u201cagitators\u201d in the country,\nthere are none more violent than those who are agitating against\nagitation. Throughout the north, that portion of the public press\nwhich volunteers its influence to extend the domain of slavery, and to\nmaintain it by extra-constitutional laws, is constantly provoking the\nagitation it denounces. What are these so-called Union meetings in\nnorthern cities but an extensive apparatus of agitation,--a piece of\nmachinery to manufacture and send abroad the very articles which its\nmanagers declare to be contraband? Through public assemblies, through\nthe public press, and by correspondence designed for the public eye,\nthey are shaking the common air to keep it calm; they are agonizing\nand in convulsions for repose; they are vociferating to maintain\nsilence. In the most clamorous days of anti-slavery, there never was\nhalf so much said and written against the institution as is now said\nand written for it. Sir, is the right of agitation to be monopolized\nby those who denounce it? Is free speech to be only on one side; and\nis it one of the offices of free speech to silence the sentiments\nit dislikes? I think this is the second time in the history of this\ncountry, that an attempt has been boldly and unblushingly made to\nstifle free discussion; and I do not believe the fate of those who are\nnow laboring to accomplish so nefarious a purpose will be historically\nmore enviable than that of their prototypes, who passed the far-famed\nlaw against seditious speeches and writings.\n\nIs it not extraordinary, too, that this interdict on discussion should\nbe applied to a subject which touches the highest interests of man,\nand calls into fervid action all the noblest faculties of his nature;\nwhich, more than any thing else, tests the question whether a man _is_\nman? We may discuss the question of bank or sub-treasury, of tariff\nor free trade; but the only subject too sacred to be approached, is\nslavery and its aggrandizements. This is a free country, except when\na man wishes to vindicate the claims of freedom. All other parts of\nthe temple may be entered, but slavery is the ark of the covenant, and\nwhoso lays his profane hands thereon must perish.\n\nSir, how comes it to pass that an institution which even the\nenlightened heathen of old pronounced to be iniquitous, and which\neighteen added centuries of Christian illumination have proved to be\nthe sum of offences against God and man, should now be protected, not\nmerely by constitutions and laws; but that a general warfare should\nbe waged against all those who would restrain it within its present\nlimits, and keep it from arming itself with new weapons of oppression?\nHow comes it to pass that this should be done, not in the despotisms\nof Austria and of Russia, but in republican America? Sir, it is not\nto be done, and cannot be done. Almighty God has so constituted the\nhuman soul, that while wrong exists upon the face of the earth, all\nthe noblest impulses of that soul will war against it. The order of\nnature will war against it. \u201cThe stars in their courses\u201d will war\nagainst it. Discussion, or agitation, if you so please to call it, is\none of the Heaven-appointed means by which truth is to be spread until\nit covers the face of the earth, as the waters cover the sea. It was\nby discussion and by agitation, in synagogue and in temple, in distant\ncities and in different empires, that Christianity was carried from its\ncradle in Jerusalem to the ends of the earth. Did not the disciples\nof Jesus Christ go \u201cagitating\u201d from city to city, from Palestine to\nGreece, and from Greece to Rome, notwithstanding they were imprisoned\nand scourged, flayed alive, and burnt, and persecuted as incendiaries\nand fanatics, by scribe, and Pharisee, and high priest? The very\naccusation brought against the Savior was, \u201cHe stirreth up the people,\nteaching throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place.\u201d\nThe subject on which anti-slavery men now \u201cagitate\u201d is inferior only in\nimportance to that on which Christ and his disciples \u201cagitated.\u201d Nay,\nthe only cause why Christianity has not prospered as it ought during\nthe last eighteen centuries, and why it has not already overspread the\nwhole earth with its blessings, is, that LIBERTY has not been given\nit as a sphere to work in. It is because SLAVERY has existed among\nmen; and Christianity never will and never can pervade the earth until\nthe barriers of slavery are first overthrown. It was by discussion and\nagitation that the prevailing religion of this country,--the Protestant\nreligion,--broke through the double phalanx of civil and sacerdotal\npower, and triumphed throughout the leading nations of Europe, under\nthe indomitable energy of that old hero of Wittemburg, who did not heed\nnor fear that prince of the slave power, the incarnate devil himself.\nIt was by discussion and agitation that the first glowing sparks of\nliberty in the bosom of the Adamses, of Hancock, and of Franklin, of\nThomas Jefferson and of Patrick Henry, were fanned into a flame that\nconsumed the hosts of the tyrant,--that tyrant who sought to put down\nthis dreadful agitation by means not a whit more reprehensible in his\nday, than those by which certain leading men are striving to silence it\nnow. Where was there ever written or published a more incendiary and\nfanatical document than the Declaration of Independence?--a torch to\nset the world on fire. In the present century, what but discussion and\nagitation, through all the realms of Great Britain and in this country,\ncould have sufficed to extinguish the slave trade,--that foulest blot\nupon modern civilization? No, sir; agitation is a part of the sublime\norder of nature. In thunder, it shakes the stagnant air, which would\notherwise breed pestilence. In tempests, it purifies the deep, which\nwould otherwise exhale miasma and death. And in the immortal thoughts\nof duty, of humanity, and of liberty, it so rouses the hearts of men\nthat they think themselves inspired of God; and not the mercenary\nclamor of the market-place, nor the outcries of politicians, clutching\nat the prizes of ambition, can suppress the utterances which true men\nbelieve themselves Heaven-commissioned to declare.\n\nThe President\u2019s message tells us that the compromise measures of the\nlast session are \u201cFINAL.\u201d I take the liberty to say of that declaration\nin the message, with all due respect to the high source from which it\ncomes, that I adopt the sentiment, that those measures are _final_,\nin one sense only. Their substance and object were, in an extreme\ndegree, pro-slavery and anti-liberty. They marked the passage of\nthis government through another long stage in the gloomy highway of\noppression. They furnished another argument for those who despair of\nhuman nature; and they supply the misanthrope with a plausible reason\nfor hating mankind. They affixed another stain upon the country, and\nset in deeper shade the contrast between the theory of our government\nand its practice. They belied still another time the gospel of love and\nhuman brotherhood. Once again they defied the vengeance of God, who is\nno respecter of persons, and who will bring the sinner to judgment.\nIf such measures are to be \u201c_final_,\u201d in this sense only do I accept\nthe proposition,--that they are to be the last of their kind; that\nhere, at this point, the career of this iniquity is to be stayed; that\nhere, the confederated powers of ambition and of wealth,--of those\nwho aspire to office and those who lust for gold, have won their last\nvictory. In this sense only do I accept the President\u2019s declaration,\nthat the action of the last Congress on this subject is to be deemed\n_final_;--that, in all future conflicts, the right shall not be\ntrampled under foot, but the victims of oppression shall triumph. Base\nas human nature often proves itself to be, it sometimes manifests a\ndivine resilience by which it springs with recuperative energy from its\nguilty fall.\n\nI draw no augury of despair from the calamity that has befallen us. It\nteaches whatever there is of virtue and of principle in mankind, the\ntask which has been set them to do, and whose accomplishment God will\nrequire at their hands.\n\nIt has been said by the Secretary of State, in a late speech, that if\nthis subject be re\u00f6pened in Congress, the friends of freedom will be\nfound in a \u201clean and miserable minority.\u201d What cares my conscience,\nsir, whether I am in a minority or a majority, _if I am right_? Has any\ngreat and glorious cause ever been started upon earth, that did not\nfind itself, at the outset, in a minority? Did Clarkson and Wilberforce\nopen their twenty years\u2019 contest with a majority? or were not all\nthe office-seekers and mammon-worshippers opposed to them? Did the\nresistance of the revolutionary patriots to the government of Great\nBritain start with a majority on its side? Did the Pilgrim fathers\nresist conformity to ecclesiastical oppression because they were a\nmajority of the people? Did the glorious band of reformers count on\nmajorities, when they defied the racks and the flames of Rome? What\nwould now be our condition if the prophets and heroes of olden days,\nif the warriors for truth and the martyrs of liberty, all over the\nearth, had yielded to so base an argument as this, and had followed\nthe multitude to do evil, instead of battling for the truth, though\nit were solitary and alone? I can conceive of but one effect which\nsuch a sentiment must produce upon all noble and truth-loving men. It\nis to make them labor for the right with a zeal commensurate with the\ninfinite baseness of the appeal by which they are urged to abandon it.\n\nBut I come now, Mr. Chairman, to the main topic of my remarks, which is\na consideration of the character of the Fugitive Slave law, passed on\nthe 18th day of September last.\n\nThe objections most generally urged against this law are of two kinds:\n\n1st. That it is unconstitutional; and\n\n2d. That, even if the framers of the constitution did leave an\nunguarded opening, through which such a law could be introduced without\na breach in the structure of that instrument, still, that it is a\ncruel law, that it discards all those principles of evidence and forms\nof proceeding which have been devised by the wisdom of ages for the\nprotection of innocence against power, and that in its whole scope and\nspirit it is in conflict with our fundamental ideas of human liberty.\n\nIt will be seen by this statement, that I here accept the constitution\naccording to its commonly-received interpretation. There is a class\nof defenders of this law whom I wish to meet on their own ground. I\ndo not, therefore, object here to the constitution as they understand\nit, but to the law. However much a man may reverence the constitution,\nthough he may make it an idol and worship it, yet I mean to show him\nthat this law is an unholy thing in its presence. I object, then,\nto the law as a departure from the constitution,--not a departure\n_towards_ despotism merely, but _into_ despotism. Admitting, what many\ndeny, that when the constitution speaks of \u201cpersons held to service\nor labor,\u201d it means slaves, and admitting that it provides for their\nreclamation when it says they \u201cshall be delivered up on claim,\u201d I still\nimpeach the Fugitive Slave law for high crimes and misdemeanors against\nthe spirit and the letter of that instrument.\n\nOn the question of the constitutionality of this law, the legal minds\nof the country are divided. It may not be easy to distribute opinions\ncorrectly, on this point, into their proper classes, and to decide\nupon their relative preponderance. If we include slave owners and\nthose whose pecuniary interests connect them directly with slavery,\nand especially if to those we add a strong party who, from political\nassociations and hopes, have surrendered themselves to a pro-slavery\npolicy, probably the number, if not the weight, of opinion, is in favor\nof the constitutionality of the law. But if we gather the opinions of\ndisinterested and unbiased men; of those who have no money to make or\noffice to hope for through the triumph of the law, then I think the\npreponderance of opinion is decidedly the other way. I know it has\nbeen said by one prominent individual, that he has heard of no man,\nwhose opinion was worth regarding, who denied the constitutionality\nof the law. Now, as it is a fact universally known, that gentlemen\nwho have occupied and adorned the highest judicial stations in their\nrespective states, together with many of the ablest lawyers in the\nwhole country, have expressed opinions against the constitutionality\nof this law, I have but one single word of reply to a declaration so\narrogant and insolent as this. That reply is, that on a great moral and\npolitical, as well as legal question,--a question that connects itself\nwith ethics, as well as with partisan politics, and the success of old\nparties or the formation of new ones,--_integrity_ is as necessary to\nthe formation of a sound opinion as _intelligence_.\n\nI think, however, that one further remark should in candor be made,\nin regard to the difference of opinions held by honest men on this\nsubject. The constitutionality or unconstitutionality of the Fugitive\nSlave law is not a question to be determined solely by any single\nand simple provision of the fundamental law. Numerous clauses in\nthe constitution have a bearing upon it. It connects itself with\ncontemporaneous history. It presents a case where commentators and\nexpounders must appeal to precedents and analogies, and to general\nprinciples respecting the nature of government and the object of all\nlaw. It is therefore a question of construction and interpretation.\nAnd, what is a more important consideration still, it belongs\nemphatically to that class of cases where men, who have been trained\nunder one class of institutions, and whose minds have been moulded\nand shaped by the universal prevalence of one set of opinions and one\ncourse of practice, may honestly come to one conclusion, while those\nwho have grown up under adverse opinions and an adverse practice,--or\nrather, into whose minds adverse opinions and adverse practices have\ngrown, until they have become a part of the very substance of those\nminds,--may honestly come to an opposite conclusion. We know, too, that\nin addition to the powerful influences of education and training, the\ngeneral cast and structure of men\u2019s minds predispose them to take one\nside or the other of great political and religious questions. Natural\nbiases operate like a law of gravitation to sway different minds in\ndifferent directions. When, therefore, a southern gentleman, into\nwhose perceptions and reasonings and moral sentiments, the facts and\nthe creed of slavery have been incorporating themselves ever since\nhe was born, tells me that he believes even such a law as this to be\nconstitutional, I can still concede the fulness of his integrity,\nhowever strongly I may dissent from the soundness of his opinion. It\nis a law that might be held constitutional by a bench of slaveholders,\nwhile it would be held unconstitutional by all the inhabitants of\na free land. It is a law that might be held valid by the courts of\nAustria, while it would be held invalid by those of England. It is a\nlaw which the judges of Westminster Hall might have held valid in the\ntime of the Stuarts, which they might and probably would have held\ninvalid in the eighteenth century; and, in the nineteenth century,\nwould certainly have reprobated and annulled.\n\nMy own opinion is, in view of the great principles of civil liberty\nout of which the constitution grew, and which it was designed to\nsecure, that this law cannot be fairly and legitimately supported on\nconstitutional grounds. I express this opinion because, after having\nformed it with careful deliberation, I am now bound to speak from it,\nand to act from it. I have read every argument, and every article in\ndefence of the law, that I could find, from whatever source emanating.\nNay, I have been more anxious to read the arguments made in its favor\nthan the arguments against it; and I think I have seen a sound legal\nanswer to all the former. As for any arrogant or supercilious dictum,\neither that the law is constitutional or that it is not constitutional,\nunaccompanied by any reason or any reference, all reflecting men must\nregard it as sheer insolence, come from what quarter it may.\n\nEven should the supreme court of the United States declare the law to\nbe constitutional, then, though we must acknowledge their decision, as\nto the point decided, to be the law of the land, until it is set aside,\nyet, without any disrespect to that tribunal, we may still adhere to\nour former opinion. We know how that court is constituted. A majority\nof its members are from slaveholding states. Independent, too, of all\nother considerations, they will feel a strong desire to maintain a\nformer opinion, which was also given when a majority of its judges\nwere from the south. We may, therefore, place our dissent on grounds\nwhich, two years ago, when the \u201cClayton compromise,\u201d so called, was\nunder discussion, were so well stated by a distinguished senator from\nOhio, [Mr. CORWIN,]--grounds perfectly respectful on our part, and not\nderogatory to the court. He said,--\n\n \u201cIt is a sad commentary upon the perfection of human reason, that,\n with but few exceptions, gentlemen coming from a slave state ... all\n eminent lawyers on this floor, from that section of the country,\n have agreed that you have no right to prohibit the introduction of\n slavery into Oregon, California, and New Mexico; while, on the other\n hand, there is not a man, with few exceptions, (and some highly\n respectable,) in the free states, learned and unlearned, clerical or\n lay, who has any pretensions to legal knowledge, but believes in his\n conscience that you have a right to prohibit slavery.... How is this?\n Can I have confidence in the supreme court of the United States, when\n my confidence fails in senators around me here? _Do I expect that\n the members of that body will be more careful than the senators from\n Georgia and South Carolina to form their opinions without any regard\n to selfish considerations?_\u201d\n\nBesides, the supreme court have already, as I will show, decided\ncertain points in such a way that, if they maintain the Fugitive Slave\nlaw, they will be obliged to overrule those points; and it is more\ncreditable to them to suppose they will overrule their decision in\nPrigg\u2019s case, than to suppose they will overrule other decisions in\nother cases.\n\nIn the first place, I believe the constitution not only authorizes but\nrequires a trial by jury, in the case of alleged fugitive slaves, when\nclaimed in free states.\n\nThe constitution declares, \u201cThe right of the people to be secure\nin their persons,\u201d \u201cagainst unreasonable\u201d \u201cseizures, shall not\nbe violated; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause,\n_supported by oath or affirmation_, and particularly describing\u201d \u201cthe\npersons or things to be seized.\u201d--_Amend._, Art. IV.\n\nIt also declares, that, \u201cIn suits at common law, where the value in\ncontroversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury\nshall be preserved.\u201d--_Amend._, Art. VII.\n\nAnd it also says, \u201cNo person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or\nproperty, without due process of law.\u201d _Amend._, Art. V. And it is most\nimportant to observe that these words, \u201cdue process of law,\u201d are held\nby all the authorities _to include the trial by jury_.--3 _Story\u2019s\nCom._ 661; 2 _Inst._ 50, 51; 2 _Kent\u2019s Com._ 10; 1 _Tucker\u2019s Black.\nApp._ 304-5.\n\nThat there may be no doubt about the meaning and force of these words,\nI quote the following passage from Chancellor Kent:--\n\n \u201cIt may be received as a self-evident proposition, universally\n understood and acknowledged throughout the country, that no person can\n be taken or imprisoned, or disseized from his freehold, or liberties,\n or estate, or exiled, or condemned, or deprived of life, liberty, or\n property, unless by the law of the land, or the judgment of his peers.\n The words, \u2018by the law of the land,\u2019 as used by the Magna Charta,\n in reference to this subject, are understood to mean \u2018due process\n of law.\u2019 That is, _by indictment or presentment of good and lawful\n men_.\u201d--2 _Com._ 13.\n\nNow, in most of the cases which will arise under the Fugitive Slave\nlaw, there will be a \u201cseizure\u201d under a warrant; and in _all_ the\ncases, the questions both of property and of liberty will necessarily\nbe involved. In every case, the claimant will aver property in the\nrespondent, and will seek to deprive him of his liberty. The respondent\nwill deny the claim of property, and will seek to retain his liberty.\n\nNow, suppose a man to have lived in Boston or New York for twenty\nyears; to have contracted marriage; to have bought and sold; to have\nhired himself out to others, and to have hired others to serve him;\nto have pleaded and been impleaded in the courts; to have voted at\nelections, and to be, in all respects, as free by the constitutions of\nMassachusetts and New York as the governors of those states themselves;\nand suppose further, that this man is suddenly seized and taken before\na commissioner, is adjudged the property of another man like himself,\nwith no chance of revising the decision, or of having a new trial,\nis placed in duress, and then transported by force, and against his\nwill, to a distant state, under a claim that he is a slave, and an\nadjudication that such claim is true,--suppose all this, I say, and\nthen answer me this simple question, Has, or has not, such a man been\n\u201cdeprived of his liberty\u201d? In other words, does such a man retain his\nliberty? As he is borne away by force, and against prayers, and tears,\nand struggles, does he remain free? Can a man be adjudged a slave;\nheld, coerced, beaten as a slave; with all his powers and faculties\nof body and mind subdued and controlled as a slave\u2019s, and yet possess\nor retain liberty? If such a proceeding does not deprive a man of his\nfreedom, by what means can he be deprived of it? What _more_, or what\n_other thing_ would you do to deprive him of it? Would binding him\nout to serve for life deprive him of it? This declares that he owes\nservice for life. Would imprisonment deprive him of it? This imprisons\nhim, and makes the man his keeper who is interested to make that\nimprisonment perpetual in himself, and descendible to his children, and\nhis children\u2019s children forever.\n\nIs not perpetual imprisonment of the nature and substance of\npunishment,--of the severest punishment? The constitution has provided\nthat \u201ccruel and unusual _punishments_ shall not be inflicted,\u201d even\nfor the perpetration of the worst of crimes; yet here is a case where\nthe most cruel of punishments, or of privations, may be inflicted\nwithout even a charge of crime. And the argument is, that this form\nof punishment may constitutionally be inflicted, because it was so\ninconceivably atrocious and diabolical that the constitution did not\nprohibit it,--because the constitution only prohibited \u201ccruel and\nunusual punishments\u201d _for crimes_, and not for having a dark skin.\n\nDoes any one say that a victim of this law has not been \u201cdeprived\u201d of\nhis liberty because he may sue for it, and possibly recover it, in the\ncourts of the state to which he is carried? I reply, that it would be\njust as good an answer to say, that he may possibly recover his liberty\nby escape, or possibly his master may emancipate him, or possibly a\nSt. Domingo insurrection may break out, or possibly the walls of his\nprison-house may be shaken down by an earthquake, and he may go forth\nlike Paul and Silas; and _therefore_ he is not deprived of his liberty\nby being enslaved. Neither of these events would have the slightest\nlegal relation to the proceedings which did enslave him. Neither of\nthem would be retroactive, undoing or annulling the past. Enslavement\nand liberty being incompatible, when he suffers the first, though but\nfor an hour, he is deprived of the last. The moment he should arrive\nwithin the limits of a slave state, that moment he would be in the same\ncondition as three million other fellow-bondmen; and it would be just\nas rational to say that they have never been deprived of liberty as\nthat he has not. When our government made war upon Algiers, ransoming\nAmerican captives from their horrible bondage and restoring them to\ntheir homes, did it annihilate the pre\u00ebxisting fact that they had been\nenslaved? Did it enable or authorize the historian to say that they had\nnever been _deprived of their liberty_? Had Algiers been \u201cre\u00e4nnexed\u201d\nas one of the states of this Union, could she have said, \u201cWe have not\nbroken the constitution because these men are free again\u201d? I affirm,\nthen, that when a man in Massachusetts, who by the constitution of\nMassachusetts is free, is adjudged to be a slave, is transported as a\nslave, and held as a slave, in a southern state, though it be but for a\nsingle day, he is deprived of his liberty. That very thing is done to\nhim which the constitution says shall not be done but by a jury of his\npeers.\n\nBut a question of PROPERTY is involved as well as a question of\nliberty. \u201cIn suits at common law,\u201d says the constitution, \u201cwhere the\nvalue in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by\njury shall be preserved.\u201d\n\nNow, sir, in regard to this important clause in the fundamental law, I\npropose to demonstrate the three following propositions:--\n\nFirst; the claim, made before a competent magistrate, for a \u201cperson\nheld to service or labor,\u201d is, in view of this constitutional\nprovision, a \u201csuit.\u201d\n\nSecond; it is a \u201csuit at common law.\u201d\n\nThird; it is a suit at common law \u201cwhere the value in controversy\nexceeds twenty dollars.\u201d\n\nAs a law term, the lexicographers define the word \u201csuit\u201d to mean\n\u201can action or process for the recovery of a right or claim; legal\napplication to a court for justice; prosecution of right before any\ntribunal;--as a civil _suit_, a criminal _suit_, a _suit_ in chancery.\u201d\n\nBlackstone says, \u201cin England, the several _suits_, or remedial\ninstruments of justice, are distinguished into three heads,--actions,\npersonal, real, and mixed.\u201d\n\n\u201cSuit\u201d comes from \u201c_secta_,\u201d and _secta_ from _sequor_; and the phrase\n\u201cto bring suit,\u201d denoted anciently, to bring _secta_,--followers, or\nwitnesses, to prove the plaintiff\u2019s demand. The scope of the word is\nnow enlarged, so that it embraces the written forms by which an action\nis instituted, as well as the proof which sustains it.\n\nWe are not, however, confined to the authority of the dictionary. The\nsupreme court, in the case of _Cohens_ vs. _Virginia_, 6 Wheat. 407,\nwhere this very word \u201csuit,\u201d as it occurs in the constitution, was the\nsubject of consideration, defined it as follows:--\n\n \u201cWhat is a _suit_? We understand it to be the prosecution, or pursuit,\n of some _claim_, demand, or request. In law language, it is the\n prosecution of some demand, in a court of justice. \u2018The remedy for\n every species of wrong is,\u2019 says Judge Blackstone, \u2018the being put\n in possession of that right whereof the party injured is deprived.\u2019\n The instruments whereby this remedy is obtained, are a diversity\n of _suits_ and actions, which are defined by the Mirror to be \u2018the\n lawful demand of one\u2019s right;\u2019 or, as Bracton and Fleta express it,\n in the words of Justinian, \u2018_jus prosequendi in judicio quod alicui\n debetur_,\u2019--(the form of prosecuting in trial, or judgment, what is\n due to any one.) Blackstone then proceeds to describe every species of\n remedy by suit; and they are all cases where the party suing claims to\n obtain something to which it has a right.\n\n \u201cTo commence a suit, is to demand something by the institution\n of process in a court of justice; and to prosecute the suit, is,\n according to the common acceptation of language, to continue that\n demand.\u201d\n\nNow let me take the different clauses of this definition, and see if\nevery one of them does not necessarily include the demand made by a\nslave claimant against the alleged slave.\n\n\u201cWe understand a suit,\u201d say the court, \u201cto be the prosecution or\npursuit of some _claim_, demand, or request.\u201d Here, then, according\nto the supreme court, a _suit_ is the prosecution of some _claim_;\nand, according to the very letter of the constitution, the fugitive\nslave is to be delivered up, on _claim_. The slave, then, can be\nconstitutionally and legally \u201cdelivered up\u201d in no other way than \u201con\nclaim,\u201d by \u201csuit.\u201d\n\nAgain, say the court: \u201cIn law language, it [a suit] is the prosecution\nof some demand in a court of justice.\u201d When legal process is instituted\nfor the recovery of a slave, is it not the prosecution of a demand? And\nwill any one be rash enough to say that a man ostensibly free,--free\naccording to all legal presumption,--can be \u201cdelivered\u201d over to bondage\nfor life, without the intervention of \u201ca court of justice\u201d?\n\nTo proceed with the opinion of the court: \u201cThe Mirror defines a suit\nto be \u2018the lawful demand of one\u2019s right;\u2019 or, as Bracton and Fleta\nexpress it, in the words of Justinian, it is the form of prosecuting in\ntrial, or judgment, what is due to any one.\u201d Here service is alleged to\nbe due; and the one who is said to owe that service is \u201cprosecuted by\ntrial and judgment,\u201d that he may render the service claimed.\n\n\u201cTo commence a suit is to demand something by the institution of\nprocess in a court of justice; and to prosecute the suit is, according\nto the common acceptation of language, to continue that demand.\u201d In the\nappeal to a court for the possession of an alleged fugitive, is not\nsomething \u201cdemanded\u201d? And what is the warrant that is issued for his\narrest but the \u201cinstitution of process\u201d?\n\nIf any one, then, will show that a \u201cclaim\u201d for an alleged fugitive, by\nprocess of law, to be followed up by proof in support of the claim, and\nto be consummated by judgment, is not a \u201csuit,\u201d he must show that it\nis not \u201cthe prosecution or support of a claim;\u201d he must show that it\nis not \u201cthe prosecution of some demand in a court of justice;\u201d he must\nshow that it is not \u201cthe lawful demand of one\u2019s right;\u201d nor \u201cthe form\nof prosecuting in trial or judgment;\u201d and finally, he must show that it\nis not \u201cto demand something by the institution of process in a court of\njustice,\u201d and then \u201cto continue that demand\u201d until judgment is rendered\nfor or against him.\n\nBut should the claimant of a fugitive slave show any one of these four\nthings, he would show himself the way out of court.\n\nAnd this brings me to the _second_ proposition, namely,--\n\nThe claim for a person \u201cheld to service or labor\u201d is, in view of the\nconstitution, a \u201c_suit at common law_.\u201d\n\nIn a decision bearing directly on the right to a trial by jury, the\nsupreme court has defined the phrase \u201csuits at common law,\u201d in special\nreference to its meaning in the seventh amendment to the constitution,\nwhere the right to such trial, \u201cin suits at common law,\u201d is secured.\nThese are their words:--\n\n \u201cIt is well known that in civil causes, in courts of equity and\n admiralty, juries do not intervene; and that courts of equity use the\n trial by jury only in extraordinary cases, to inform the conscience\n of the court. When, therefore, we find that the [seventh] amendment\n requires that the right of trial by jury shall be preserved in suits\n at common law, the natural conclusion is, that this distinction was\n present to the minds of the framers of the amendment. By _common law_\n they meant, what the constitution denominated in the third article,\n \u2018law;\u2019 not merely suits, which the _common_ law recognized among its\n old and settled proceedings; but suits, in which _legal_ rights were\n to be ascertained and determined, in contradistinction to those in\n which equitable rights alone were recognized, and equitable remedies\n were administered, or in which, as in the admiralty, a mixture of\n public law, and of maritime law and equity, was often found in the\n same suit. Probably there were few, if any states in the Union, in\n which some new legal remedies, differing from the old common law\n forms, were not in use; but in which, however, the trial by jury\n intervened, and the general regulations, in other respects, were\n according to the course of the common law. Proceedings in cases of\n partition, and of foreign and domestic attachment, might be cited,\n as examples, variously adopted and modified. _In a just sense, the\n amendment, then, may well he construed to embrace all suits, which are\n not of equity or admiralty jurisdiction_, WHATEVER MAY BE THE PECULIAR\n FORM WHICH THEY MAY ASSUME TO SETTLE LEGAL RIGHTS.\u201d--_Parsons_ vs.\n _Bedford_, 3 Peters\u2019s Rep. 456-57.\n\nHere the court say, that the term \u201ccommon law,\u201d in the seventh\namendment, meant what the constitution denominated in the third\narticle, \u201claw.\u201d The word \u201claw\u201d which is here referred to, as contained\nin the third article, occurs in the following sentence: \u201cThe judicial\npower shall extend to all cases, in _law_ and equity, arising under\nthis constitution, the laws of the United States,\u201d &c. And the court\ndeclare that the constitutional right to a jury trial embraces \u201cnot\nmerely suits, which the _common_ law recognized among its old and\nsettled proceedings, but suits in which _legal_ rights were to be\nascertained and determined,\u201d in contradistinction from equity and\nadmiralty cases.\n\nAnd in the last sentence of the decision quoted, the court expressly\nsay, that the seventh amendment embraces \u201c_all suits which are not of\nequity or admiralty jurisdiction_, WHATEVER MAY BE THE PECULIAR FORM\nWHICH THEY MAY ASSUME TO SETTLE LEGAL RIGHTS.\u201d The court say \u201cALL.\u201d\nAfter excepting cases of equity and admiralty jurisdiction, they\ndeclare that the phrase, \u201csuits at common law,\u201d embraces _all_ the\nrest. They recognize no hybrid class, not included under one or another\nof these heads.\n\nNow it has been proved above, that a warrant for the arrest of an\nalleged fugitive, together with the allegations and proofs under it,\nconstitute a \u201csuit.\u201d And can any thing be more clear, than that a\nproceeding which decides the issue, whether a man \u201cowes\u201d or does not\n\u201cowe;\u201d which decides the issue, whether a man has \u201cescaped,\u201d or has\nnot \u201cescaped;\u201d and which, as the legal consequence of these decisions,\ndelivers one man into the custody of another as his slave, or enlarges\none man from the custody of another because he is not his slave, is,\n\u201cwhatever peculiar form it may assume,\u201d a proceeding \u201cto settle a\nlegal right,\u201d--one of the highest and most important legal rights that\nappertain to a man? It is not, in legal language, a right \u201cof equity or\nadmiralty jurisdiction,\u201d but exclusively and purely a _legal right_,\nand nothing else.\n\nThe court declare this to be so, _whatever peculiar form the process\nmay assume_. But what gives peculiar pertinency and stringency to this\ndecision of the court is, that at common law there was an original\nwrit, called the writ _de homine replegiando_,--the writ of personal\nreplevin, or for replevying a man, by which the question of property\nin a man might be determined. It was a writ which the party could sue\nout of right; one to be granted on motion, without showing cause, and\nwhich the court of chancery could not supersede. In the very language\nof the supreme court, it was a writ recognized by the common law, and\nis to be found \u201camong its old and settled proceedings.\u201d The form of it\nis contained in that great arsenal of common law writs, the _Registrum\nBrevium_.\n\n\u201cA man,\u201d says Comyn, \u201cmay have a _homine replegiando_ for a negro, or\nfor an Indian brought by him into England and detained from him; or it\nmay be brought by an infant against his testamentary guardian; or _by a\nvillein against his lord_.\u201d--(Dig., title Imprisonment, L. 4.)\n\nIf this writ could be brought \u201cfor a negro,\u201d or \u201cfor an Indian,\u201d by\na man who had introduced him into England, and from whom he had been\ndetained; and if, on the other hand, it could be brought by the negro,\nor by the Indian to gain his freedom, as was clearly the case, then it\nfollows that the question of a right to a man, as well as that of human\nfreedom, was a question familiar to the ancient common law, and for the\ntrial of which a well-known process existed \u201camong its old and settled\nproceedings.\u201d But this ancient writ, _de homine replegiando_, carries\nwith it, as every body knows, the trial by jury, as much as an action\nof assault and battery, or of assumpsit on a promissory note.\n\nI have always understood, that before the revolution, and before the\nframing of our constitution, Comyn\u2019s Digest, from which the above\ncitation is made, was a work of the highest authority. It must have\nbeen well known to all the lawyers in the convention. Could they have\nintended that the mere fact of claiming a man as a slave,--which claim\nmight be made against a freeman as well as against a slave,--should be\nsufficient to deprive him of this ancient muniment of the subject\u2019s\nliberty? It seems impossible!\n\nBut we are not left to the broad and general assertion, contained\nin the case of _Parsons_ vs. _Bedford_, that the seventh article of\namendment embraces \u201call suits\u201d not of equity or admiralty jurisdiction,\nwhatever the peculiar form which they may assume to settle legal\nrights. Authority exists still more pointed and direct. In _Baker_ vs.\n_Riddle_, Mr. Justice Baldwin, one of the judges of the supreme court\nof the United States, held that it was not in the power of Congress\nto take away the right of trial by jury, as secured by the seventh\namendment; neither,--\n\n\u201c1. By an organization of the courts in such a manner as not to secure\nit to suitors; nor,\n\n\u201c2. By authorizing the courts to exercise, or their assumption of,\nequity or admiralty jurisdiction over cases at law.\u201d\n\n\u201cThis amendment,\u201d says he, \u201cpreserves the right of jury trial against\nany infringement by any department of the government.\u201d--_Baldwin\u2019s\nRep._ 404.\n\nNow, what are the tribunals created by the Fugitive Slave law but a new\n\u201corganization of the courts\u201d? or rather, the creation of new courts,\n\u201cin such a manner as not to secure, [the right of trial by jury,] to\nsuitors?\u201d By it, Congress creates tribunals unknown to the common law,\nand purports to give them power over common law rights.\n\nHaving now proved, from the nature of the claim in\ncontroversy,--namely, the claim of one man to the personal services and\nthe liberty of another man, and the counter claim of personal liberty\nand of self-ownership,--that the right in dispute between the claimant\nof an alleged fugitive, and the person claimed, is a common law right;\nand that _any_ legal process to determine this right, \u201cwhatever form\nit may assume,\u201d is a \u201csuit at common law,\u201d it only remains, under this\nhead, to establish my _third_ point, namely;\n\nA claim to _any_ person, as one \u201cheld to service or labor,\u201d always and\nnecessarily presumes that \u201cthe value in controversy exceeds twenty\ndollars.\u201d\n\nOn this point, direct authority may be found in the case of _Lee_ vs.\n_Lee_, 8 Peters\u2019s Rep. 44. This was an appealed case, where by law\nno appeal could be taken unless \u201cthe value in controversy\u201d should\nbe \u201cone thousand dollars or upwards.\u201d It was objected that the\nappellants,--the petitioners for freedom,--were not worth a thousand\ndollars. But the court said,--\n\n \u201cThe matter in dispute, in this case, is the freedom of the\n petitioners. The judgment of the court below is against their claim\n to freedom; the matter in dispute is, therefore, to the plaintiffs\n in error, the value of their freedom, _and this is not susceptible\n of a pecuniary valuation_. Had the judgment been in favor of the\n petitioners, and the writ of error brought by the party claiming to be\n the owner, the value of the slaves as _property_ would have been the\n matter in dispute, and affidavits might be admitted to ascertain such\n value. But affidavits estimating the value of freedom are entirely\n inadmissible, and no doubt is entertained of the jurisdiction of the\n court.\u201d\n\nSuppose there are two claimants for the same alleged fugitive? If his\nmarket value exceeds twenty dollars, both of them have a clear right\nto the trial by jury. And can it be that a man\u2019s right to his own\n_freedom_ cannot be tried by a jury, when, if two men dispute about his\n_value_, each may claim the jury trial, and cannot be denied?\n\nOn the three points, then, 1. What constitutes a common law or \u201clegal\nright;\u201d 2. What constitutes \u201ca suit at common law,\u201d and 3. What\nconstitutes \u201ca value which exceeds twenty dollars,\u201d--namely; the\npersonal liberty of any human being, though he be an infant just born,\nor a drivelling idiot, or he be stretched upon his death bed with only\nanother hour to breathe,--I trust I have made out a case which entitles\na party to trial by jury under the constitution of the United States.\n\nI might here rest the argument, feeling that, from authority and from\nreason, from the old and time-honored principles of the common law,\nas well as from those interpretations of the constitution which have\nbeen given by the supreme court, my conclusions are impregnable. But I\nproceed to notice some of the points taken on the other side; and if I\nshall occasionally advert to positions that are obviously too shallow\nand fallacious for discussion, it is only because I wish to omit\nnothing which any one may think of importance.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIt is alleged that the whole force of the above argument, otherwise\nconclusive, is annulled, because a slave is no party to the\nconstitution, is not under its protecting shield any more than a horse\nor an ox, and therefore, any provisions, however strong, securing the\njury trial, are inapplicable to him. A slave, it is said, is not one\nof the \u201cpeople\u201d by whom and for whom the constitution was formed. He\nis an outlaw, and an outcast. He has no inherent or inalienable rights\n_as a man_. What he has, he has _ex gratia_, by the good will of those\nwho own him, body and soul, and who are graciously pleased to forego\nsome of their legal rights from generosity in themselves, and not from\njustice to him.\n\nNow, as it seems to me, a most obvious principle confutes this\nargument utterly. By the laws of the free states, we know no such\nbeing as a slave. Our courts, in their functions as state courts,\ndo not understand the meaning of the word _slave_. To talk to them\nin that capacity about a slave or slavery, is talking to them in an\nunknown tongue. In the eye of the legislators of the free states, and\nin the eye of the courts of the free states, so far as their domestic\npolity is concerned, there can be no such creature as a slave. The\nconstitution of every free state in this Union must be first altered,\nbefore any such being as a slave, or any such condition as slavery, can\nbe recognized under them, as state authorities.\n\nSo the constitution of the United States creates no slaves, and can\ncreate none. Nor has it power to establish the condition of slavery\nany where. And I hold further, that if the government of the United\nStates, by escheat, by purchase, by execution against a debtor, or in\nany other way, should become possessed of a slave, that moment he would\nbe free. The government of the United States can neither hold a slave,\nnor make valid title to a slave by sale. It is a government whose\npowers consist of the grants that have been made to it; and nowhere, by\nno competent party, has any such grant ever been made.\n\nThe relation of the government of the United States to slavery consists\nin this, and in this alone: that when this government was created,\nslavery existed in a portion of the states; and by certain provisions\nin the constitution, the existence of this slavery was recognized,\nand certain rights and duties in relation to it were respectively\nacknowledged and assumed. But the government of the United States has\nno more power to turn a freemen in a free state into a slave than it\nhas to turn a slave in a slave state into a freeman.\n\nThe officers of the state government being sworn to support the\nconstitution of the United States, the governments of the free states\nare implicated indirectly in the matter of slavery, as the government\nof the United States is directly, and not otherwise.\n\nBoth by the constitution of the United States, then, and by the\nconstitutions of all the free states, every man found within the limits\nof a free state is _prima facie_ FREE. No matter what complexion he\nmay wear, or what language he may speak, he is a free man UNTIL some\nother civil condition is proved upon him, or until he forfeits his\nfreedom by crime. Every man, therefore, in any one of the free states\nof this Union, has a right to stand upon this legal presumption, and\nto claim all the privileges and immunities that grow out of it _until_\nhis presumed freedom is wrested from him by legal proof. It is the\nmost cruel of sophisms to say, that because a man is _claimed_ as a\nslave, he is not under the protection of the constitution, and then\n_to prescribe a base mode of trial for him, by which he can be proved\nthe thing he is claimed for_. On the subject of freedom or slavery, we\nof the free states know of but one class of men living among us. That\nclass is free. There is no such class as slaves known to our laws.\nNor is there any intermediate class, who may be presumed to be slaves\non account of their color, or who may be proved to be slaves by less\nevidence, or by an inferior kind of evidence, because of color.\n\nNo axiom is more universal or indisputable, than that the right to\nfreedom in a free state, and the right to be held and treated by\nthe courts as a freeman, has no relation to complexion. If, then,\nthese rights have no relation to complexion, _all_ white men may be\narbitrarily presumed to be slaves, and be deprived of the form of\ntrial, secured to them by the constitution, just as well as any colored\nman can be. The former may just as well be proved to be slaves, on\ndangerous, or on inferior, or on insufficient evidence, as the latter.\nNo; the liberty to which every man, of whatever color, in a free state,\nis _prima facie_ entitled, invests him with its protection, and this\ninvestiture cannot be stripped from him but by the judgment of his\npeers or the law of the land,--which, as we have before seen, means\ntrial by jury.\n\nAny other interpretation assumes this as a postulate, namely, that\nthere is a higher or surer kind of trial applicable to freemen, and\na lower or inferior mode of proceeding applicable to slaves. And the\ninhuman inference from this assumption is, that any man against whom a\nten-dollar commissioner may issue a warrant as a possible slave, shall\nforthwith be subjected to the slave\u2019s mode of trial, and be utterly\ndeprived of the freeman\u2019s mode of trial; or, at the best, that he\nshall be sent away a thousand miles, into another jurisdiction, there\nonly to have the slave\u2019s mode of trial. According to this form of\nproceeding, the first thing which the commissioner says to his victim\nis, \u201cBeing a slave, you must be tried in a summary manner.\u201d \u201cBut I am\nnot a slave,\u201d asseverates the respondent, \u201cand I claim to be tried by\nmy peers under the guaranties of the constitution.\u201d \u201cYou are no party\nto the constitution,\u201d rejoins the commissioner, \u201cand, therefore, not\nentitled to its shelter. The constitution was made by the people, and\nfor the people, and you are not of them.\u201d Then says the victim, \u201cIf I\ncould have the trial due to a freeman, I could prove myself a freeman;\nbut under the form of trial awarded to a slave, I may be adjudged a\nslave; so that my fate is made to depend not upon my rights, but upon\nyour form of proceeding.\u201d \u201cEven if so,\u201d retorts the mercenary minister\nof the law, \u201cit is but an imperfection incident to human institutions.\nIs not one man\u2019s property sometimes taken to pay another man\u2019s debts?\nand is not one man sometimes executed for another man\u2019s murder? Why,\nthen, should the courts of justice be arraigned, if a freeman, instead\nof a slave, is sometimes consigned to bondage?\u201d\n\nSir, the unmistakable distinction lies here; that if there be any\ndifference between the kind or degree of proof applicable to a freeman\nand that applicable to a slave, then, in a free state, you must first\nprove a man to be a slave by freeman\u2019s proof. If cast on such proof,\nthen, and not till then, does he become the subject of slave proof.\nAny thing else under the form of justice is a mockery of justice. No\nman will say that the \u201cclaim\u201d imposes any disability upon the person\nclaimed, or takes away from him any rights. A man who has a presumptive\nright to his liberty, has a perfect right to all the means to prove it.\nThe \u201cclaim\u201d imposes no obligation to deliver up, but the proof under\nthe claim; and this proof in a case of \u201clife, liberty, or property,\u201d\nis to be judged of by a jury. The real question is, _who_ is to be\ndelivered up, a slave or a freeman? If the person arrested is prejudged\nto be a slave, then there is no need of a trial at all. If he is _prima\nfacie_ a freeman, then he is entitled to the most perfect mode of trial.\n\nBy the theory, I believe, of all the slave states but one, every person\nof maternal African descent is presumed to be a slave. As such, his\ncivil condition is fixed, special tribunals are constituted to try him,\nand he is subjected to rules of evidence unknown to the common law and\nnever applied to freemen. Now it would be but the same kind of legal\nabsurdity and preposterousness, for the presumptive slave in a slave\nstate, to demand the form of trial, the tribunal, and the evidence,\nwhich there appertain to a freeman, as it is to subject the presumptive\nfreeman in a free state, to the form of trial, the tribunal, and the\nevidence, which appertain to a slave.\n\nThe iniquity of the law is, that it enables a perjured or fictitious\nslave owner, on proofs most easily fabricated, to seize any individual\nin a free state, and to _prejudge_ him to be a slave, by the very\nform of trial which this law authorizes. On the contrary, nothing can\nbe more clear, than that the civil condition or _status_ of every\nman found in a free state is that of a free man. His living under a\nfree constitution, without any thing more, invests him _prima facie_\nwith this character. Until divested of this character, he continues\npresumptively a free man. While such, he is entitled to every security\nwhich the constitution gives to a free man. How then can he be\nsubjected to a trial which reverses the whole law of presumption in\nfavor of freedom, and which presumes that he is a slave to begin with?\nThis is not only anticipating the judgment at the commencement of the\nproceedings, but it is anticipating the worst judgment that can be\npassed; and, by anticipating, procuring it; as prophecies often procure\ntheir own fulfilment.\n\nI put this case, and I challenge an answer that shall refute or admit\nmy conclusion: If any one man in a free state can be seized and\nsuddenly transported into bondage under this law, _then every other man\nalso can be; and there is not a single person left in any free state\nwho has a right to a trial by jury to save him from slavery_. I am\nnot now speaking of the special danger to each particular individual,\nbut of the principle that embraces us all. Under the most oppressive\nof tyrannies there are persons who are not in danger. But under such\na law as this, who can tell what may happen to men arrested away from\nhome, to unprotected women, and to helpless children? Do you say that a\npublic sentiment and a public watchfulness exist, which would protect\nthe whites, the female, and the child? I reply, that we possess our\nright to protection under the constitution and laws, and are not to\nbe turned over to public sentiment or public watchfulness in order to\nenjoy it.\n\nSuppose an analogous law to be passed respecting debtor and creditor.\nSuppose a law to provide some new mode of proceeding by which the\nindebtedness of a defendant should be so far presumed as to subject\nhim to an inferior kind of defence, or to transfer his case to another\nkind of tribunal, as from jurors to arbitrators, to be selected by the\nplaintiff himself. Who is there, though through all his life he had\nfulfilled the apostolic injunction to \u201cowe no man any thing,\u201d that\nmight not be cast in an action that would strip him of all his fortune?\n\nThe law punishes murder by death. Could it know with omniscient\ncertainty, beforehand, _who is a murderer_, it might take from him the\ntrial by jury without offence to the eternal principles of justice. It\nis because the law cannot know with infallible certainty, beforehand,\nwho is a murderer, that it provides the trial by jury to determine the\nquestion. Just so, because human tribunals cannot know with certainty\nwho is a slave and who is free, the constitution gives the trial by\njury, before any man in a free state shall be deprived of his freedom.\nAnd the argument, that if a man be wrongfully consigned to bondage\nhe may be afterwards restored to freedom, is as audacious and as\ntyrannical as to say that an innocent man may be hanged and sent into\nanother world as a felon, because sometimes the dead have been restored\nto life.\n\nIt is no answer to this view of the case, to say that all processes,\nwhether civil or criminal, are initiated on the supposition that a\npecuniary liability exists, or that a wrong has been done. Every body\nknows that no presumption of this kind follows the plaintiff, or the\ngovernment, into court. When there, in the presence of the law, the\nplaintiff must establish his claim affirmatively. The possible debtor\nis no longer a debtor. So the government must prove the guilt of the\nman it has arraigned. The possible criminal is no longer a criminal. In\nthe eye of the law, he is as innocent as the unborn child. When they\nclaim the trial by jury, neither plaintiff nor prosecutor can say, You\nare not entitled to this form of trial, because you _are_ presumptively\na debtor, or presumptively an offender. Yet this is precisely, and _in\ntotidem verbis_, what the pro-slavery argument says to the respondent\nwhen he is brought before the commissioner and put in peril of his\nfreedom. In both the cases supposed, such a doctrine would take away a\nman\u2019s rights in the most odious manner, by taking away the legitimate\nand constitutional means of defending them.\n\nFor the purpose of determining by suit or by prosecution whether a man\nis a debtor or is an offender, a suit or a prosecution may be commenced\nagainst him, but never for the purpose of raising a presumption that he\nis either the one or the other, or to deprive him of any evidence to\nwhich an unindebted or an innocent man is entitled, or to change the\ntribunal which is to try the question of indebtedness or of guilt. If\nattachment on mesne process, if even indictment by the grand inquest\nfor the county, does not deprive a man of his right to a trial by jury,\nhow can so great a natural wrong be constitutionally inflicted by the\nwarrant of a commissioner?\n\nThe presumption that a colored man is a free man in the free states,\nis just as strong as that a man of pure, unmixed, Anglo-Saxon blood is\na free man in the slave states; and would they tolerate the doctrine\nfor a moment that any perfectly pure-blooded white person could be\ntransformed into a slave, and as such sent from his own state into\nanother, under this law? Nay more; would any slave claimant at the\nsouth be allowed to go _into a slave state_, and seize upon a pretended\nfugitive whom another man might claim to own, under such a process\nas is now sufficient, _in a free state_, to authorize the taking and\ncarrying away of the same individual?\n\nBut to the argument, that the constitution and the law of 1850 apply\nonly to slaves, and that because slaves are not parties to the\nconstitution they are not under its protection, and so not included\nin the provision for jury trial, there is another answer perfectly\nfatal. It is this: the constitution does not enumerate the various\nclasses of criminals who shall be entitled to trial by jury; but with\nthe exception of cases of impeachment, and cases in the military and\nnaval service, it expressly declares as follows: \u201cThe trial of all\ncrimes shall be by jury.\u201d And also, \u201cIn all criminal prosecutions,\nthe accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by\nan impartial jury,\u201d &c. The right, therefore, is not made to depend\nupon the _classes of persons_ on trial, but upon the nature of the\ncharge brought against them. The constitution does not say that\nfreemen shall be tried in one way and slaves in another; but its\nlanguage is, \u201call crimes,\u201d and \u201call criminal prosecutions;\u201d so that\nit embraces every person _who is prosecuted_, whether free or slave,\ncitizen or foreigner, Jew or Gentile. If an Englishman or a Frenchman\nwere to be tried here for murder, how would the whole world deride\nthe suggestion that he should not have a jury trial because he is a\nforeigner,--because he is not one of the \u201cpeople,\u201d and so not a party\nto the constitution!\n\nSo the constitution does not say, in suits between merchant and\nmerchant, or between landlord and tenant, and so forth, \u201cthe right of\ntrial by jury shall be preserved;\u201d but it says, \u201c_In suits at common\nlaw_, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars.\u201d The\nright is not determined by the character of the litigants, but by the\nnature of the action. The constitution does not care who the parties\nare,--man, woman, bond or free,--it is all the same. As soon as parties\nappear upon the record, the right to trial by jury attaches. The\n_suit_, and not the _civil condition_ of the litigants who instituted\nor who defend it, tests and determines the jury question.\n\nIn the case of _Lee_ vs. _Lee_, before cited, the law allowed an appeal\nonly in case the sum in controversy should amount to one thousand\ndollars. The appellant was of African descent, and therefore, within\nthat jurisdiction, presumptively a slave; not presumptively a freeman,\nas every man is in a free state; and, if a slave, then he could own no\nproperty; for, by the cruel law of slavery, every master may rob his\nslave legally of all that he earns, or finds, or otherwise receives.\nYet the supreme court sustained the appeal. Why was not so astute an\nexception as this then taken?--an exception which, if they have a bar\nin Pandemonium, would have done honor to one of its counsellors. Why\nwas it not said that a slave was no party to the law, and therefore\nnot entitled to its benefits? No reason can be assigned why a slave\nis not as much under the protection of a constitution made for the\n\u201cpeople,\u201d as under the protection of a law made for the \u201cpeople.\u201d\nYet here, even in the case of a presumptive slave, a right was\nacknowledged, which some freemen, in free states, deny to presumptive\nfreemen.\n\nI have here been combating the argument, that because the Fugitive\nSlave law is aimed at slaves, no freeman has any ground of complaint\nagainst it, even though he should be converted into a chattel under\nit. He must console himself under the doom of interminable bondage,\nwith the patriotic and pious reflection that he is only suffering,\nas an exception, to prove the general excellence of the law; and he\nmust leave this consolation also to his enslaved children. For, in his\ncase, it is said that eternal slavery is only one of those exceptions\nin the working of the law which proves the rule of its general\nexcellence. This argument I hold to be eminently sophistical and\ncruelly oppressive. But if any one believes it to be a sound argument,\nthen I hold him to all fair deductions resulting from it,--of which the\nfollowing is clearly one:--\n\nOn the same ground on which Congress passes a law for escaped slaves,\nlet every free state pass a law for resident freemen. The presumption\nin every free state being, that all men within its borders are free,\nlet every such state give the trial by jury, in all cases in which\npersonal liberty is involved, to every one who shall ask for it, and\nwho has not once had it in a litigation with the same party, on the\nsame subject-matter. According to the argument I have been considering,\nno slaveholder can complain of such a law; for, by its very terms, it\napplies only to freemen. The law of Congress applying only to slaves,\nand the supposed state law applying only to freemen, there is no\nconflict between them. And if, by accident or mistake, any real slave\nshould take shelter under such a state law, and should escape a life\nof horrible bondage, it will be only one of those mistakes which may\narise under the purest administration of justice. It will answer quite\nas well as its counterpart case, to stand as one of those exceptions\nin the working of a rule which prove its general excellence. If the\noccasional subjection of a freeman instead of a slave, to all the\nhorrors of bondage, constitutes no valid objection to the United\nStates law, then, surely, the occasional enfranchisement of a slave\nfrom a bondage that was always unjust and cruel, should constitute no\nobjection to the law of the free state. If this Fugitive Slave law\ncontinues for a single year, I hope every free state will pass a law\ninflicting condign punishment upon every man who directly or indirectly\nassists in sending any man into southern bondage, unless he can prove\nbefore a jury that the man so sent was a slave.\n\nSo far, I have considered the question, whether a fair interpretation\nof the constitution does not secure the jury trial in every free state,\nto an alleged fugitive, and empower him to demand it as a matter of\nright.\n\nBut this is a strange question to discuss in a republican government.\nThe proper question is, not whether the constitution expressly\n_demands_ the jury trial, but whether it will, by any fair implication,\n_allow_ it. The only point which a republican judge or citizen can,\nwith decency, make on this subject is, Does the constitution forbid,\nprohibit, deny, such trial?--for, if it does not, then the jury should\nbe granted of course. In a free country, under a free government,\nwhere the idea has become traditional, where the doctrine has become\na household doctrine, that the trial by jury is the palladium of our\ncivil and religious liberties, is it not amazing that we should find\nmen who seem eager to avoid this form of trial, rather than zealous to\ngrasp it? It is the saddest of spectacles; it argues the most mournful\ndegeneracy, to see the children at this early day, from grovelling\nnotions of ambition and of wealth, abandoning those noble principles\nof freedom for which their fathers so lately shed their blood.\nWherever the constitution allows the trial by jury, in a matter of\nhuman liberty, in Heaven\u2019s name let us have it. Let Russia and Austria\ncurtail and deny this privilege of freemen; let the tyrant, and the\ntyrant\u2019s minions among ourselves, explore the musty records of darker\ntimes, to find precedents against it; let them strive, by their shallow\nsophistries and plausibilities, to gloss over this ravishing of liberty\nand life from beings created in the image of God; but let every true\nrepublican, whenever, in the disposal of these momentous interests,\nthe constitution will, by fair construction, sanction it, cling to the\ntrial by jury, as to the only plank that will save him,--ay, the only\none that will save the human race,--from being again ingulfed in the\nvortex of despotism. The enemy of the trial by jury, wherever human\nliberty is concerned, is the enemy of human liberty and of the human\nrace. The friends of a repeal of this law, then, need not discuss the\nquestion whether the constitution does expressly confer the right of\ntrial by jury upon the alleged fugitive, for it is enough for them if\nthe constitution does not take it away.\n\nIt is worthy of remark, that in both of the bankrupt laws passed by the\nUnited States, it was expressly provided, that when the commissioners\nshould declare any person to be a bankrupt, he should have the right to\na trial by jury to annul their decision. Thus, when the law proposed,\nnot to appropriate a man\u2019s property, but merely to enable his creditors\nto receive it in payment of their debts, the jury trial was secured\nto him; but here, where the direct purpose is to strip a man of his\nliberty, and of his property in himself, the jury trial is denied.\n\nThis seems an appropriate place to consider the further irrelevant\nsuggestion, sometimes obtruded, namely, that an alleged fugitive is not\ndeprived of a trial by jury, because he may have it in the state to\nwhich he is carried.\n\nHere the pro-slavery advocate admits, at least for argument\u2019s sake,\nthat the alleged fugitive has a right, at some time, and some where, to\nthe jury trial. If so, then there are numerous and powerful reasons why\nthis trial should be had in the state in which he is found, rather than\nin that to which he may be transported. I will advert to a few of these\nreasons.\n\n1. Slaves are held to be personal property. Trover lies for their value\nwhere they have been unlawfully converted. Trespass is the remedy\nfor an injury done to them. According to the laws of all the slave\nstates, they are the subject of larceny. Suits to recover them, or to\nrecover damages for an injury done to them, are personal actions; and\nin personal actions it is required, by all the precedents and all the\nanalogies of the common law, that the action should be tried in the\njurisdiction where the writ is served. By the common law, personal\nactions are transitory. They are to be brought where the defendant\nresides; or, at least, where the property which is claimed lies. In the\ncase of an alleged slave, both the defendant and the property are where\n_he_ is found. According to the usages and principles of the common\nlaw, therefore, the trial should be there.\n\n2. Before trial and judgment, the parties are like any other parties\nbefore the court, or they should be so. The claimant stands upon the\nmerits of his claim; the respondent upon those of his defence. It\nmay be inconvenient for a Texan claimant to prove his right to an\nalleged fugitive in Massachusetts; but it will be indefinitely more\ninconvenient for a citizen of Massachusetts to prove his freedom in\nTexas. If the trial is in Massachusetts, and the plaintiff prevails, he\ntakes immediate possession of his slave, and is invested at once with\nall the rights which the rigors of the slave law so abundantly give.\nBut if the trial is in Texas, whither the defendant has been forcibly\nexiled, and there _he_ prevails, who is to reimburse or recompense him\nfor his intermediate bondage; for being dragged from his home; torn\nfrom wife, children, and friends; for being plunged, perhaps for years,\ninto the hell of slavery itself, with all the untold agonies of an\napprehended slavery for life?\n\nWhat Judge Story says respecting the right of all persons who are\naccused of crime to be tried by a \u201cjury of the state and district\nwherein the crime shall have been committed,\u201d applies with full force\nto a trial for liberty. \u201cThe object of this clause,\u201d says he, \u201cis to\nsecure the party accused from _being dragged to trial in some distant\nstate_, away from his friends, and witnesses, and neighborhood.\u201d\n\u201cBesides this,\u201d he continues, \u201ca trial in a distant state or territory\nmight subject the party to the most oppressive expenses, or perhaps\neven to the inability of procuring the proper witnesses to establish\nhis innocence.\u201d (3 _Com_. 654.) For \u201cinnocence\u201d read _liberty_, and the\nargument in behalf of the alleged criminal becomes applicable to the\nalleged fugitive. And why should the alleged fugitive be treated less\nmercifully than the alleged felon? The law is unspeakably rigorous in\nthe case of an alleged fugitive, but softens into mercy over an alleged\npirate or murderer.\n\nIf the trial, then, is where all the practice and principles of the\ncommon law indicate that it should be, no great or irreparable injury\nis done; no inconvenience even is suffered beyond that which is always\nsuffered in enforcing a claim in a foreign and distant jurisdiction.\nBut if a freemen is carried away, a grievous and intolerable wrong is\ndone; a wound is inflicted which mortal medicaments cannot heal, nor\nthe longest continued punishment of the malefactor ever expiate.\n\n3. By transferring the trial to the place of the claimant\u2019s domicile,\nan effective, and, as it seems to me, a most iniquitous advantage is\ngiven him, in regard to evidence, while the respondent is subjected\nto cruel disabilities. By the laws of all but one or two of the slave\nstates, persons of African descent, whether slave or free, are declared\nincompetent witnesses against white men. The freeman, then, by being\nremoved as a fugitive into a slave state, may lose his evidence, which,\nunder such circumstances, is the loss of his liberty. This violation,\ntherefore, of the principles of the common law, in regard to the\nplace of trial, is, to him, of the most momentous consequence. It is\nnot true, then, in any just sense, that the trial by jury is still\n\u201cpreserved\u201d to the alleged fugitive, notwithstanding his removal to a\nslave state. The common law trial, as inclusive of the right to adduce\ncommon law evidence, is not \u201cpreserved.\u201d\n\n4. But not only is the evidence different, but, in some of the slave\nstates, _the law itself is different_; so that one man may carry\nanother by force into a jurisdiction where the law will account him\na slave, when, had he been tried where he was found, the law would\ndeclare him free,--the facts in both cases being the same.\n\nTake the law of Kentucky, for instance,--and I refer to this state\nbecause its slave code is of a milder type than that of most of the\nSouthern States, its dreadful rigors being mitigated by an infusion of\nmore humanity.\n\nBy the laws of Kentucky, a master may carry a slave _in transitu_,\nthrough a free state, or he may allow his slave to go temporarily\ninto a free state, without a forfeiture of the legal right to hold\nhim. _Graham_ vs. _Strader & Gorman_, 5 Ben. Munroe, 173, (1844;)\n_Davis_ vs. _Tingle et al._, 8 Ben. Munroe, 545, (1848;) _Collins_ vs.\n_America_, 9 Ben. Munroe, 565, (1849;) _Bushe\u2019s Reps._ vs. _White_, 3\nMunroe, 104; _Rankin_ vs. _Lydia_, 2 A. K. Marshall, 468, (1820.)\n\nIn Massachusetts certainly, and I suppose in most of the Northern\nStates, all such cases would be decided in favor of the respondent.[20]\n\nNow, what greater outrage can be inflicted upon a man than to seize,\nand bind, and carry him into a foreign jurisdiction, where not only is\nthe evidence different, by which his rights may be proved, but where\nthe law also is different, by which his rights are to be adjudicated.\nIn Holland, the killing of a stork once was, if it be not now,\npunishable with death; because this bird devours the animals that\nwould otherwise bore through and undermine its ocean-barring dikes.\nIn a neighboring country, the killing of a stork may not be merely\nblameless, but praiseworthy. What an atrocity it would be to seize a\nman in the latter country, and carry him to Holland to be tried and\nexecuted for doing an act which, according to the law of the place\nwhere he had a right to be tried, may have been not only innocent, but\nlaudable! I leave you, sir, to make the application.\n\n5. But what must shock every man who possesses any just appreciation\nof the value of human liberty, or has any just perception of the\nprinciples on which it is founded, is, that under the Fugitive Slave\nlaw, the plaintiff gets possession and control not only of the chattel\nor article of property claimed, but of the defendant himself. He gets\ncommand, not only of the thing in litigation, but of the body and soul\nof the litigant. A Boston or New York merchant would consider it a\ngrievous hardship, if a southern adventurer could go there and seize\nupon all his property, transport it to Mobile, or New Orleans, and\ncompel the owner to follow it and try title to it, in the place of\nthe captor\u2019s domicile. Still more grievous would the hardship become,\nif, under the new jurisdiction, the defendant might be deprived of\nthe evidence which, at home, would be decisive of his rights, or find\nhimself controlled by adverse laws which he never had helped to frame.\nBut what an extreme of barbarous tyranny would it be, if, beyond all\nthese enormities, the southern plaintiff could seize him too,--the\ndefendant himself,--the alleged debtor,--and grasp him in his own\niron hand, obtaining supreme control over his body by force, and over\nhis mind by fear; could command his powers of locomotion, so that he\ncould go only where the will of his master would permit; could control\nhis speech and his vision, so that he could consult with no counsel,\nand could see no friend but such as were in his master\u2019s pay; and, to\nenforce his authority, could imprison him, and starve him, and scourge\nhim, and mutilate him, if he but so much as uttered a whisper that\nhe had a right to have a trial by his country, or opened his lips in\nprayer to God to break the fetters of his iniquitous bondage!\n\nTo tamper with the witnesses of the adverse party, or endeavor to\nsuborn his counsel to violate their duty to their client, is not only\nan act of the grossest baseness, but would subject the offender to\npenal retribution. Yet what need would there ever be of corrupting\nwitnesses or suborning counsel, if a party could get bodily possession\nand absolute control of his antagonist himself?\n\nDoes not every one see that, in ninety-nine cases in a hundred, a\ncontrol over the defendant\u2019s person and will would be a control over\nhis case? His rights would be lost in his enforced disability to defend\nthem. You might as well put out a man\u2019s eyes, and then talk of his\nright in the common sunlight. In Baltimore, or Louisville, a kidnapped\nfreeman might find an opportunity of self-redemption; but such a\ncaptive will never be carried to Baltimore or Louisville. He will be\nsent to some interior region, perhaps fifty miles from any court, or\nthe residence of any counsel, where he may never have an opportunity to\nspeak to a white man unless it be to a taskmaster, who is paid to guard\nand to silence him.\n\nThe authors of the Federalist deemed the principle of excluding an\ninterested party from all power of deciding his own cause to be so\nimportant, that they laid down the following doctrine: \u201cNo man ought\ncertainly to be a judge in his own cause, or in any cause, in respect\nto which he has the least interest or bias.\u201d (No. 80.) Yet the only\nchance which the Fugitive Slave law allows to a freeman, when carried\ninto bondage, is that which he may exercise while under the absolute\ncontrol of his robber master.\n\nBut more than this: the law imposes no obligation upon the claimant to\ncarry his victim to the state he is charged to have escaped from. A man\ncharged to have escaped from Texas may be carried to Florida. Nay, he\nmay not be carried to any state in this Union; but may be sent to Cuba\nor Brazil; beyond hope, and into the outer darkness of despair.\n\nAll the arguments which I have ever heard, or seen, on this point,\ngratuitously _assume_, that the persons reclaimed and transported\nwill have an honest master, be surrounded by kind friends, and have a\nlawyer at hand whom they can consult with every day, and money in their\npockets to fee him. Would such be the case of a kidnapped freeman?\nWould a wretch, vile enough to rob a man of his liberty, carry him\nfive hundred or a thousand miles, and then go to a shire town during a\nsession of the court, and give his pretended slave a purse of money\nwith which to fee a lawyer for investigating his right to freedom?\nNo! the man who knows, or suspects, that he has seized a freeman, or\nthat his victim even believes himself to be a freeman, and will put\nthe claimant to the trouble and expense of a trial, will plunge that\nfreeman into the abyss of bondage, where no ray of hope may ever reach\nhim, and where his voice will be hushed as in the silence of death.\n\nAnother objection to the Fugitive Slave law is, that it confers\njudicial power upon persons who are not judges. Here we are not left\nto inference or construction, but can stand on the plain words of the\nconstitution. The third article declares,--\n\n \u201cThe judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one\n supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from\n time to time ordain and establish. The judges both of the supreme and\n inferior courts shall hold their offices during good behavior, and\n shall at stated times receive for their services a compensation which\n shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.\u201d--_Art._\n III. \u00a7 1.\n\nHere I hold it to be clear beyond dispute, that the \u201cjudges\u201d mentioned\nin the second sentence of the above section are the members of the\n\u201csupreme court\u201d and \u201cinferior courts\u201d mentioned in the first section,\nand no other. If so, then there can be no doubt about the tenure of\ntheir office, and the mode of their appointment, compensation, and\nremoval.\n\nBy sec. 2, of Art. II., the President \u201cshall nominate, and by and\nwith the advice and consent of the Senate shall appoint,\u201d \u201cjudges of\nthe supreme court, and all other officers of the United States, whose\nappointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be\nestablished by law.\u201d\n\nThe appointment of _no_ judge of _any_ court is \u201cotherwise provided\nfor in the constitution;\u201d and therefore the appointment of _all_ the\njudges in whom \u201cthe judicial power of the United States is vested,\u201d\nbelongs by the constitution to the President and Senate; and this\n\u201cjudicial power\u201d cannot be delegated to, nor exercised by, any persons\nnot so appointed.\n\nThe courts may appoint \u201cinferior officers,\u201d such as clerks, criers, or\nmasters in chancery; but these are not \u201cjudges;\u201d nor would any one of\nthem singly, nor any number of them associated together, constitute a\n\u201ccourt,\u201d within the meaning of the first section of the third article.\nWere such the case, then _they_ might have power to appoint \u201cinferior\nofficers,\u201d and so on, by sub-delegation, indefinitely.\n\nThe constitution also defines what it means by \u201cjudicial power.\u201d It\nsays, \u201cThe judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity\narising under this constitution, the laws of the United States,\u201d &c.\n\nNow, my objection is, that the Fugitive Slave law requires the creation\nof a large body of officers who are not \u201cjudges,\u201d but whom it purports\nto invest with \u201cjudicial powers.\u201d\n\nThey are not \u201cjudges,\u201d because they are not nominated by the President\nand confirmed by the Senate, as all \u201cjudges\u201d must be.\n\nThey are not \u201cjudges\u201d again, because, if they were, they must hold\ntheir offices \u201cduring good behavior.\u201d But the commissioners may be\nunmade on the day they are made. \u201cJudges\u201d can be removed only by\nconviction, on impeachment. Commissioners may be removed by the court\nthat appointed them. Not the President, nor the Senate, nor both\ntogether, can remove a judge, unless by the initiatory and concurrent\naction of the House of Representatives. An \u201cinferior court\u201d can eject a\ncommissioner without notice.\n\nEven if Congress had declared, by express words, that the commissioners\nappointed by the circuit and district courts should be taken and\nheld to be \u201cjudges,\u201d it would not make them so; for Congress cannot\ndelegate any power to judges to appoint judges, nor to courts to make\ncourts. If Congress could not do this by express enactment, how can it\ndo so by implication?\n\nCommissioners are not \u201cjudges,\u201d also, because no person can be a\n\u201cjudge\u201d who is not entitled, \u201cat stated times, to receive for his\nservices a compensation which shall not be diminished during his\ncontinuance in office.\u201d\n\nThis provision necessitates the conclusion that all \u201cjudges\u201d must be\nentitled to salaries payable periodically. These salaries are in no\ncase to depend upon the _amount_ or the _quality_ of their labors,--far\nless, if possible, upon their deciding the cases that are brought\nbefore them for the plaintiff or for the defendant. One \u201cjudge\u201d may\nhave an enviable reputation for talent and integrity, and thus attract\nsuitors to his court. Another may be as corrupt as Lord Jeffries,\nand repel all honest litigants from him. But, in either case, he has\na right to a compensation which shall not be diminished during his\ncontinuance in office. Each year gives him a definite, unchanged sum of\nmoney.\n\nBut the commissioner is paid by fees, and the amount of his fees\ndepends partly upon the number of cases he decides, and partly also\nupon the party in whose favor he decides. If he decides that a man\nis free, he receives five dollars. If he decides that he is a slave,\nhe receives ten. If the commissioner is acceptable to slave hunters,\nsuitors multiply. If obnoxious to them, his docket is bare of a case.\nHe is entitled to his compensation, not \u201cat stated times,\u201d but on the\ndetermination of each case. His compensation may be diminished, or it\nmay cease altogether, during his continuance in office. Each year does\nnot give him any definite, unchanged sum of money.\n\nThe \u201cjudge\u201d must be paid by the government, and is independent of all\nthe parties before his court. The commissioner is never to be paid by\nthe government, but is wholly dependent for his fees upon the claimant\nwhose case he tries. The government guaranties the payment of the\n\u201cjudge,\u201d but it can never inquire or know whether the commissioner be\npaid or not.\n\nBy the sixth article of the constitution, all \u201cjudicial officers\u201d must\nmake oath or affirmation that they will support the constitution. But\nthere is no law requiring these commissioners to take an oath; and as a\nmatter of practice, in some parts of the country at least, it is known\nthat they take no such oath.\n\nNow, by the act, a portion of the \u201cjudicial power\u201d of the United\nStates, the _whole_ of which is, by the constitution, vested in\none \u201csupreme court,\u201d and in \u201cinferior courts,\u201d is given to the\ncommissioners. The fourth section says they \u201cshall have concurrent\n_jurisdiction_ with the judges of the circuit and district courts of\nthe United States.\u201d If the power of these courts, in the premises,\nis judicial, then the power of the commissioners, being the same, is\njudicial.\n\nThe attorney-general of the United States, in a written opinion, given\nby command of the President, declares that this power, so given to the\ncommissioners, is judicial. The following are his words:--\n\n \u201cThese officers, [the commissioners,] and each of them, have judicial\n power, and jurisdiction to hear, examine, and decide the case.\u201d\n\n \u201cThe certificate to be granted to the owner is to be regarded as the\n act and judgment of a judicial tribunal having competent jurisdiction.\u201d\n\n \u201cCongress has constituted a tribunal with exclusive jurisdiction\n to determine summarily, and without appeal, who are fugitives\n from service. The judgment of the tribunal created by this act is\n conclusive upon all tribunals.\u201d\n\nSuch is the opinion of the attorney-general of the United States,\ngiven upon the precise point, by order of the President of the United\nStates.\n\nBut the point needed no authority to sustain it. It results inevitably\nfrom the very nature of the power conferred by the law. The decision\nof the commissioner is to be _final_ and _conclusive_, and the\nsubject-matter of the decision is liberty and property. The case\ncannot be reheard or re\u00ebxamined by any judge, or by any court, of any\nstate, or of the United States. The decision acts _in rem_ and _in\npersonam_. It delivers the property to the claimant, and puts the body\nof the defendant into his custody. From that moment, if the law has\nany validity, the defendant is the slave of the plaintiff, by force\nof a \u201cjudicial\u201d decision. The plaintiff, thenceforth, may control his\nactions, his words, his food, his sleep. If he chooses to exercise his\nauthority in such a way, he can order his victim to carry him home on\nhis back, and make him bear the loathsome burden of his person as well\nas of his will. Now, to say that the power which effects these results\nis not a judicial power, is to do violence to language, and to commit a\nfraud upon the inherent nature of ideas. In no case known to the common\nlaw, or indeed to any other law, is a plaintiff invested with _full_\nrights, except after _final_ judgment.\n\nIf, then, this power is a \u201cjudicial power,\u201d the constitution\nperemptorily forbids that it should be vested any where but in a\n\u201ccourt,\u201d whose \u201cjudges\u201d are nominated, confirmed, sworn, hold office,\nare paid, and are removable, according to its requirements. Look at\nthe constitutional distribution of powers. By the first article, all\nlegislative power \u201cshall be vested in a Congress.\u201d By the second\narticle, the \u201cexecutive power shall be vested in a President.\u201d And by\nthe third article, \u201cthe judicial power shall be vested\u201d in the courts.\nAnd it was just as competent for Congress to invest \u201ccommissioners\u201d\nwith supreme \u201cexecutive\u201d or \u201clegislative\u201d power, as to vest them with\n\u201cjudicial\u201d power.\n\nIf, by good fortune, or by miraculous interposition, a captured freeman\nshould afterwards obtain a hearing in a court of the state to which he\nhad been carried, such hearing would, in no sense, be in the nature of\na review of the former case, either by appeal, writ of error, mandamus,\nor certiorari. It would be by the institution of _another_ suit, under\n_another_ government. The relation of the parties would be reversed.\nThe respondent who was kidnapped must be plaintiff, the plaintiff\nkidnapper, or some one claiming under him, must be defendant. Were the\nvarious _possessory_ writs known to the English common law any the less\n\u201csuits at common law\u201d? or were the courts that tried them any the less\n_judicial_ tribunals, because a _writ of right_ could be afterwards\nbrought, in which the previous judgments could not be pleaded in bar,\nand would be neither estoppel nor proof of title?\n\nBut to avoid the force of this, it has been said, that the proceedings\nbefore the commissioner do not constitute a \u201ccase,\u201d within the meaning\nof the second section of the third article, which extends the \u201cjudicial\npower\u201d of the United States to all \u201ccases\u201d in law and equity. Instead\nof being a \u201ccase,\u201d it is said to be only a summary inquiry, designed\nto operate as a condition for executive action, in order to accomplish\na special and limited object; like the inquiry, who are rightful\nclaimants of money held by the government, under a treaty, and how\nmuch belongs to each one. It is also said, that if a construction so\nliteral is to be put upon the words \u201cjudicial power,\u201d then no master\nin chancery could act in behalf of the courts in equity cases; no\ncommissioner of bankruptcy could be appointed under a bankrupt law, &c.\n\nIn answer to the first position, that the proceedings for the\nreclamation of fugitive slaves do not constitute \u201ca case,\u201d we have the\nmost explicit declaration of the supreme court in more _cases_ than\none. In Prigg\u2019s case, 16 Peters, 616, the court say,--\n\n \u201cIt is plain, then, that while a claim is made by the owner, out of\n possession, for the delivery of a slave, it must be made, if at all,\n against some other person; and inasmuch as the right is a right of\n property capable of being recognized, and asserted by proceedings\n before a court of justice, between parties adverse to each other,\n it constitutes, in the strictest sense, a controversy between the\n parties, and a CASE, arising under the constitution of the United\n States, within the express delegation of JUDICIAL POWER given by that\n instrument.\u201d\n\n \u201cA CASE in law or equity consists of the right of the one party\n as well as of the other, and may truly be said to arise under the\n constitution, or a law of the United States, _whenever its correct\n decision depends_ ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF EITHER.\u201d--_Cohens_ vs.\n _Virginia_, 6 Wheat. 379, (5 Cond. Rep. 101.)\n\nIndeed, almost every page of the opinion of the court, in _Cohens_ vs.\n_Virginia_, may be referred to, to show that they used the word \u201ccase\u201d\nin a sense that embraces the proceedings for the reclamation of a\nfugitive slave. If so, then any tribunal, having jurisdiction over such\na \u201ccase,\u201d is vested with a part of the \u201cjudicial\u201d power of the United\nStates.\n\nIn defining the word \u201ccase,\u201d as it occurs in this article, Judge Story\nsays,--\n\n \u201cIt is clear that the judicial department is authorized to exercise\n jurisdiction to the full extent of the constitution, laws, and\n treaties of the United States, _whenever any question respecting\n them shall assume such a form that the judicial power is capable of\n acting upon it_. When it has assumed such a form, it then becomes a\n _case_\u201d--3 _Comm._ 507.\n\n \u201cA case, then, in the sense of this clause of the constitution,\n arises, when some subject touching the constitution, laws, or treaties\n of the United States, is submitted to the courts by a party who\n asserts his rights in the form prescribed by law.\u201d--_Ibid._\n\nAnd, as if these definitions were not clear enough, the learned judge\nadds,--\n\n \u201cCases arising under the _laws_ of the United States are such as\n grow out of the _legislation_ of Congress, within the scope of their\n constitutional authority, _whether they constitute the right, or\n privilege, or claim, or protection, or defence of the party, in whole\n or in part, by whom they are asserted_.\u201d--3 _Comm._ 508.\n\nIt seems clear, then, that the proceedings authorized by the Fugitive\nSlave law cannot be taken out of the meaning of the word \u201ccases,\u201d\n(cases in law and equity,) in the third article.\n\nThere is another clause in the third article, which embraces these\nproceedings with equal clearness and certainty. \u201cThe judicial power\nshall extend to controversies\u201d \u201cbetween a state and citizens of another\nstate.\u201d I suppose it will not be denied that a slave state may itself\nown slaves. They may escheat to it, be taken in execution for debt, &c.\nNow, a free citizen of Massachusetts may enter the port of Charleston\nas a mariner, be seized, imprisoned, and then sold into slavery for\nnon-payment of jail fees. The State of South Carolina may purchase him.\nHe may escape and return to Massachusetts. South Carolina may then\nclaim him under this Fugitive Slave law.\n\nIn such a condition of things, a \u201ccontroversy\u201d will exist between\n\u201ca state and a citizen of another state.\u201d The commissioner can take\njurisdiction of that case as well as of any other. And who will be\nbold enough to say that a trial and judgment by him, delivering up the\nrespondent to bondage, would not be the exercise of \u201cjudicial power\u201d in\na controversy between \u201ca state and a citizen of another state\u201d?\n\nThe argument, that if the commissioner under the Fugitive Slave law\nexercises \u201cjudicial power,\u201d then masters in chancery, commissioners of\nbankruptcy, &c., exercise it, is answered by a word.\n\nMasters in chancery assist the court in preparing questions for\ndecision, but they decide nothing. Every act of theirs may be reheard\nand re\u00ebxamined by the court at the pleasure of either party. They enter\nup no judgment; they issue no execution. They may express the opinion\nthat the plaintiff or defendant is entitled to recover a certain sum\nof money, or to hold the chattel in dispute; but neither of them can\ntouch it. They are \u201c_judges_\u201d in no legitimate sense. They exercise no\npart of the \u201cjudicial power.\u201d The court may call upon them to state\nan account between parties, as it calls upon a clerk to make up the\nrecord, or a servitor to bring a law book, or asks a friend to cast up\nthe interest on a promissory note. Such are the functions of a master\nin chancery, whose acts have no legal validity until assented to by the\nparties or sanctioned by the court.\n\nSo with regard to commissioners of bankruptcy. Every act they were ever\nauthorized to perform derived all its legal force from the consent of\nthe parties, or from the verdict of a jury, before whom it had been\ncontested, or from the judgment of the court,--as may be seen at a\nglance, by reference to the acts creating them.\n\nAs to the supposed \u201cjudicial power\u201d exercised by commissioners, under\na treaty to determine who are rightful claimants, and to how much each\none is entitled, it is almost too obvious to remark, that as no citizen\ncan bring \u201csuit\u201d against the government, the \u201cjudicial power\u201d does not\n\u201cextend\u201d to such a case, and the suggestion is puerile.\n\nA word more will close my remarks on this topic. We have seen that a\ndecision of the commissioner adverse to the respondent delivers him\nover into absolute, unconditional slavery. But the prevalent opinion\nis, that a decision in the respondent\u2019s favor is no bar to a subsequent\ntrial of the same person on a new \u201cclaim.\u201d It was actually held in\nLong\u2019s case, in New York, where the claimant apprehended that the\ndecision of the first commissioner would be against him, that he might\nabandon proceedings before that tribunal and resort to another. He did\nso, and prevailed. That is, the claimant may select, from among an\nindefinite number of irresponsible magistrates, the one whose ignorance\nor whose turpitude may promise the best chances of success. But if,\nfrom any cause, he should apprehend defeat, then, and before the final\njudgment is pronounced, he can withdraw his suit and commence anew\nbefore another magistrate, and so throw the dice of the law again and\nagain, until, by the very doctrine of chances, he shall ultimately\nsucceed. Such want of equity between the parties stamps this law as\ninfamous,--for inequity is iniquity.\n\nAn argument in favor of the surrender of alleged fugitives from service\nunder this law has been derived from the provision for the surrender\nof fugitives from justice. But the difference between the cases is\nworld-wide. In regard to slaves, the constitution says,--\u201cNo person\nHELD to service,\u201d &c.; but in regard to criminals, its language is, \u201cA\nperson CHARGED,\u201d &c.\n\nNow, who can avoid perceiving the difference between the legal force\nof the words \u201cheld\u201d and \u201ccharged\u201d? The obligor in a bond is \u201cHELD and\nfirmly bound.\u201d The grantor conveys an estate \u201cto have and to HOLD\u201d\nto the grantee and his heirs and assigns forever. So a lessee is to\n\u201cHOLD\u201d for the term specified. A man is HELD to answer a charge, &c.,\n&c. In all these cases the word \u201c_hold_\u201d implies a perfect obligation\nor certain liability. But a man is \u201cCHARGED\u201d with an offence when a\ngrand jury has found an indictment against him, or when a competent\nperson has made the requisite oath. It is not enough that a man be\n_charged_ to be _held_ to service. He must be _proved_ to be _held_, or\nhe remains free; the court must know that he is so _held_ before they\nare authorized to surrender him. And how, under our constitution, can\nthe court know such facts as convert a presumptive freeman into a slave\nwithout a trial by jury?\n\nHad the constitution said a fugitive _guilty_ of murder, &c., shall\nbe delivered up, could a man be delivered up until _proved_ guilty of\nmurder? Yet the word _guilty_ is no stronger in reference to a fugitive\nfrom justice than is the word _held_ in reference to a fugitive from\nservice.\n\nAnother distinction between the cases is not less marked than the\npreceding. When the fugitive from justice is _claimed_, he is claimed\nby a _state_ for having violated its law, and when he is delivered up\nhe is delivered into the custody of the law. Legal process must have\nbeen commenced against him in the state from which he fled. He is\nreturned, that the prosecution thus commenced may be completed. He is\ndelivered from an officer of the law in one state to the officer of the\nlaw in another state. He is transferred, not to avoid a trial, but to\nhave one. The original indictment or _charge_, the arrest in a foreign\nstate, and the delivery and transportation to the place of trial, are\nbut separate parts of one legal proceeding. The shield of the law is\ncontinued over him. All the time and all the way, he has the solemn\npledge of the government, that if not found guilty on the prosecution\n_then pending_, he shall be discharged.\n\nBut the alleged slave is claimed not by a state, but by an individual,\nand he is delivered up, not into the custody of the law, where his\nright might be adjudicated upon, but into private hands; not into the\nhands of a neutral or indifferent person even, but into the hands of\na party interested to deprive him of all his rights, and who himself\nclaims to be judge, jury, and all the witnesses, in determining what\nthose rights are. If he be not a slave, then he is delivered into the\nhands of a man-stealer. The shield of the law is not continued over\nhim; nay, the Fugitive Slave act expressly provides that, whatever his\nrights may be, yet, while _in transitu_, the law shall not recognize\nthem. The certificate given by the commissioner to the claimant is to\nprevent \u201call molestation of him by any process issued by the court,\njudge, magistrate, or other person whomsoever.\u201d Under this practical\ninterpretation of our constitution, which, as its own preamble\ndeclares, was formed to \u201cestablish justice, and secure the blessings of\nliberty,\u201d it takes better care of felons than of freemen.\n\nBut there are other provisions of the constitution respecting the\ntrial of _criminals_, which would control this provision respecting\nthe delivery of fugitives from justice, even if there should be any\ndoubts about its true construction. By the constitution as originally\nadopted, and by the fifth amendment, all crimes, (except in cases of\nimpeachment, or in the land and naval forces,) are to be tried in the\nstate and district where committed. This makes it impossible to try\na fugitive from justice in the state to which he has fled. It is an\nexpress prohibition against trying him there. But no such prohibition\nexists, no analogous provision exists, respecting the trial of \u201csuits\nat common law,\u201d or the trial of \u201ccases\u201d or \u201ccontroversies,\u201d in which\na man may be deprived of \u201clife, liberty, or property.\u201d These cases,\ntherefore, not being taken out of the general provisions of the\nconstitution for securing the rights of the citizen, are left within\nit, and hence must be tried by a jury in the place where the claim is\nmade.\n\nMy next objection to this law is, that it attempts to suspend the writ\nof _habeas corpus_.\n\nThe constitution says, \u201cThe privilege of the writ of _habeas corpus_\nshall not be suspended, unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion,\nthe public safety may require it.\u201d The Fugitive Slave law declares\nthat the \u201ccertificate\u201d given to the claimant, his agent or attorney,\n\u201cshall prevent all molestation of said person or persons by any process\nissued by any court, judge, magistrate, or other person whomsoever.\u201d\nNow, as a writ of _habeas corpus_ is a \u201cprocess issued by a court or\njudge,\u201d it follows, that, according to the terms of the Fugitive Slave\nlaw, the slave owner is not to be \u201c_molested_\u201d by that process. What,\nthen, will constitute a \u201cmolestation\u201d of him under this law? Would the\nservice of a writ of _habeas corpus_ upon him, and, in case of his\nrefusal voluntarily to obey it, the seizure of his person, and the\ncarrying of him bodily before the court, perhaps a hundred miles out\nof his way;--would the moral necessity of employing counsel, and being\notherwise subjected to great expense, both of money and time;--would\nany or all of these impediments and privations amount to what this\nlaw denominates \u201cmolestation\u201d? If they would, then the slave owner is\nexempted from them. And if so exempted from them, is not the privilege\nof the writ of _habeas corpus_ \u201csuspended,\u201d as to his pretended slave?\nWhat else can a \u201csuspension\u201d of it mean?\n\nBut take the other alternative. Suppose the writ of _habeas corpus_ to\nbe issued, and a return of all the facts by which the supposed slave\nis held to be made. The very return brings the Fugitive Slave act\nbefore the court; and if the act is before the court, then, surely, the\nquestion is also before the court, whether it is constitutional or not.\nFor, if unconstitutional, it is no law, and no justification of the\nrestraint. Suppose the court to decide the act to be unconstitutional,\nand to discharge the prisoner. This surely would be a \u201cmolestation\u201d of\nhim, in the strongest sense of the word. To say the least of it, then,\nthe law contains an insolent and audacious provision, forbidding the\n\u201ccourts, judges, magistrates, and all other persons whomsoever,\u201d to\ndo what it may be their sworn constitutional duty to do,--that is,\nto inquire into the constitutionality of the law, and, if found to be\nunconstitutional, to disregard it.\n\nI am aware of the astute reasoning of the present able attorney-general\nof the United States. He says, first, that the act does not suspend the\nwrit of _habeas corpus_, because such suspension would be \u201ca plain and\npalpable violation of the constitution, and no intention to commit such\na violation of the constitution ought to be imputed\u201d to Congress; and\nsecond, that if the certificate of the commissioner is shown \u201cupon the\napplication of the fugitive for a writ of _habeas corpus_, it prevents\nthe issuing of the writ; if upon the return, it discharges the writ,\nand restores or maintains the custody.\u201d\n\nThe first reason might be more briefly stated thus: it don\u2019t because it\ndon\u2019t; or it don\u2019t because it can\u2019t.\n\nThe second is as little satisfactory as the first. If the facts\nare shown, it says, upon the fugitive\u2019s application for a writ, no\nwrit will issue; if shown upon the return of the writ, it will be\nabated. Is it not most clear that this assumes the very question\nin dispute, whether the law on which the certificate is founded be\nconstitutional or not? The statement may be all very true, if the law\nbe constitutional; but suppose the law to be unconstitutional, would\nnot the statement be superlatively absurd? Yet whether the law be\nconstitutional or not, is the very question to be determined.\n\nLet me test the soundness of this logic by a supposed case. There\nis, at the present time, a set of politicians amongst us, who are so\nalarmed at agitation that each one of them is a kind of Peter the\nHermit, getting up a crusade to prevent it. Now, suppose Congress,\n\u201c_as a peace measure_,\u201d should pass a law authorizing the secretary of\nstate to issue his warrant for the arrest and imprisonment, until the\n4th day of March, 1853, or at least until after the next presidential\nnominations are made, of any person who shall be guilty of agitating\n_on the wrong side of said peace measure_, and should further declare\nthat any jailer having such warrant from said secretary should be free\nfrom \u201call molestation by any process issued by any court, magistrate,\nor other person whomsoever.\u201d Would it be a sound, judicial, and\nlawyer-like argument, in such a case, to say that Congress could not,\nand could not have intended to, violate the constitution, and therefore\nthey had not violated it; and that if the warrant for commitment should\nappear upon the prisoner\u2019s application for a writ of _habeas corpus_,\nit would prevent its issuing; if, upon its return, it would discharge\nit?\n\nI think it impossible for any one to show that if the argument be\ngood in the first case, it would not be good in the second; and good,\nindeed, in any case, however outrageously violating the constitution.\n\nAgain: suppose the 18th of September last, when the Fugitive Slave\nbill was approved, to have been a time \u201cof rebellion or invasion,\u201d\nwhen the public safety required the suspension of this writ, would\nnot such words as end the sixth section of the act be sufficient in\nlaw to suspend it? The attorney-general seems to rely upon the fact\nthat the Fugitive Slave law does not mention the _habeas corpus_. He\ncannot surely mean to say that the privilege of this writ could not\nbe suspended, unless by name. Even slavery is not mentioned in the\nconstitution _by name_. Suppose Congress, in a time of rebellion or\ninvasion, to say, in regard to any class of cases which it might choose\nto specify, that if one person shall hold another under executive\nwarrant, such warrant \u201cshall prevent all molestation of said person or\npersons by any process issued by any court, judge, magistrate, or other\nperson whomsoever;\u201d could any man deny that such words would have ample\nforce to suspend the privilege of this sacred and time-hallowed writ?\n\nNo! Heaven, and not the thirty-first Congress, be praised for it!\nThough this infamous Fugitive law _could not_ suspend the _habeas\ncorpus_, yet its words are adequate to do so. They purport to put the\nprofessional slave-hunter, as it regards the privilege from arrest, or\n\u201cmolestation,\u201d on the footing of a member of Congress; and it would not\nhave gone one iota further, in point of principle, had they made his\nperson inviolable while going to seize his prey, and when returning\nwith it.\n\nIf the argument of the attorney-general be sound, then the whole\n\u201cprivilege of the writ of _habeas corpus_,\u201d under any corrupt law\nthat any corrupt Congress may pass, will consist in the privilege of\napplying to a court for the writ, and being refused; or in suing out\nthe writ, and having it quashed.\n\nBy the principles of the English law, the privilege of the _habeas\ncorpus_ attaches to all, whether bond or free. The words _liber homo_,\nsays Lord Coke, extend to every one of the king\u2019s subjects, \u201cbe he\necclesiastical or temporal, free or _bond_, man or woman, old or young,\nor be he outlawed, excommunicated, or any other, without exception.\u201d--2\n_Inst._ 55.\n\nI now proceed to lay open for the abhorrence of mankind other\ndeformities of this most odious law. In opposing a law, a distinction\nis to be made between the courts and the people; between the bench and\nthe ballot-box. The courts can hear but one objection to a law. It\nmay be impolitic, unrighteous, atrocious; but if it be constitutional\nthey must sustain it. But before the tribunal of the people, a law may\nbe impeached for any attribute of cruelty, oppression, or meanness.\nI denounce the Fugitive Slave law for all these qualities. In its\nscornful rejection of all those common-law principles of evidence\nwhich have been ratified by the wisdom of ages; in the \u201csummary\u201d and\npiratical haste of its proceedings, and in the indelible blood with\nwhich its judgments are recorded, I believe it has not a parallel in\nthe modern code of any civilized people.\n\nShould the courts, hampered by previous decisions, and habituated to\nthe spectacle and the support of a cruel institution, pronounce this\nlaw to be constitutional, such a judgment would give new force to every\nreason why the people should demand its modification or repeal. It is\nnot enough that it should be declared void by the courts as against the\nfundamental law of the land; it deserves to be branded by the people\nas abhorrent to humanity, to civilization, and to the gospel of Jesus\nChrist.\n\nLook at its provisions in regard to evidence. The proof of three facts\ndooms the victim: first, that the person named in the warrant owes the\nclaimant service; second, that he has escaped; and, third, identity.\n\nNow, according to the law, all these facts may be proved in the absence\nof the party to be ruined by them. The whole case may be established\nby evidence taken behind the victim\u2019s back, without notice to him,\nwithout knowledge, or possibility of knowledge, on his part. A freeman\nmay be suddenly arrested, and dragged into court, and on certain papers\nbeing read against him, which he never saw nor heard of before, he may\nbe ordered into the custody of officers, and hurried to a returnless\ndistance from wife, children, and friends, reduced to the direst\nform of bondage the world ever knew, and at the expense of the very\ngovernment which he has been taxed to support, and which in turn was\nbound to protect him. I will prove by a reference to the act itself\nthat these atrocities are among its conspicuous features.\n\nBy the sixth section it is made the duty of the \u201ccourt, judge, or\ncommissioner,\u201d \u201cupon satisfactory proof being made by deposition _or\naffidavit_, in writing,\u201d \u201cor by other satisfactory testimony,\u201d \u201cand\nwith proof, _also by affidavit_, of the identity of the person whose\nservice or labor is claimed,\u201d \u201cto make out and deliver to such claimant\na certificate,\u201d &c.\n\nAnd the tenth section of the act declares that the transcript of\na record \u201ctaken in any state or territory, or in the District of\nColumbia,\u201d and \u201cproduced in any other state, territory, or district,\u201d\nand being there \u201cexhibited to any judge, commissioner, or other\nofficer authorized to cause persons escaping from service or labor to\nbe delivered up, shall be held and taken to be full and _conclusive_\nevidence of the fact of escape, and that the service or labor of the\nperson escaping is due to the party in said record mentioned.\u201d \u201cAnd\nupon the production of other and further evidence, _if necessary_,\neither oral or _by affidavit_, of the identity of the person escaping,\nhe or she shall be delivered up to the claimant.\u201d\n\nHere, then, is a provision unknown to the common law of England, or\nto any colony, or people, or tribe that ever claimed the common law\nof England as their inheritance; unknown even to the star chamber,\nor high commission court; unknown in the bloodiest reigns of the\nbloodiest tyrants that ever sat upon the English throne; unknown\nto those judicial villains whom Lord Campbell calls \u201c_ruffians in\nermine_\u201d--incorporated into the code of a republican government.\nEvidence, which may consign to slavery a man who is ostensibly and\npresumptively free,--free by the laws of the state where he is, and\nfree every where by the law of God and humanity,--may be prepared in\nhis absence, without any notice to him, and by any means of perjury or\nsubornation of perjury to which guilt may resort, and this evidence is\nmade legally sufficient to doom a fellow-being to relentless bondage.\nNotwithstanding those remarkable clauses in the constitution which\nprovide that \u201cin all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the\nright to a _speedy_ and _public_ trial,\u201d \u201cbe informed of the nature\nand cause of the accusation,\u201d \u201cbe confronted with the witnesses against\nhim,\u201d \u201chave compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor,\u201d\n\u201cand have the assistance of counsel for his defence;\u201d yet Judge Story\ncomments upon them in a spirit of dissatisfaction and sorrow; \u201cfor,\u201d\nsays he, \u201cunless the whole system [of the common law] is incorporated,\n_and especially the law of evidence_, a corrupt legislature, or a\ndebased and servile people, may render the whole little more than\na solemn pageantry.\u201d (3 _Com._ 662.) In speaking of a \u201ccorrupt\nlegislature,\u201d he seems to describe what this Congress has done in\nenacting the Fugitive Slave law at its last session; and, in speaking\nof a \u201cdebased and servile people,\u201d he speaks of just such a people as\nthe advocates and champions of this law are now striving to make the\npeople of the United States become!\n\nThe right of cross examining witnesses is a common-law right,\nappertaining to all kinds of trials. It is a right without which all\ntrials are but mockery. It is oftentimes a hardship to be confronted\nwith witnesses of whom one knows nothing; but to be debarred from all\nopportunity of getting, by cross questioning, at the knowledge that\nis in them; to be debarred from the right of showing that they are\nincompetent even to folly, or corrupt even to wilful perjury, this is\na barbarity unknown to any code in the civilized world, save to the\ncode of the United States of America. It is what even barbarians might\nbe ashamed of. It is offering bounties and premiums on villany, and\nturning the courts into brokers\u2019 offices for perjury. Under such a law,\nis there a single colored person at the north who can rise to his labor\nin the morning, or lie down to his repose at night, with any feeling\nof security that avarice and false swearing may not then be at work\nfor his destruction? Who can wonder, if he is tormented in his nightly\ndreams by images of the man-stealer, in far off regions, plotting for\nhis ruin? Who can wonder if, in his city residence, he starts as he\nturns the corner of every street; or, in his rural home, if he shudders\nat the rustle of every leaf, lest some kidnapper should spring from his\nambush to seize him? That sense of personal security which every honest\nman is entitled to feel, this law abolishes. The virtuous man cannot\nrely upon his government, nor the pious man upon his God, for earthly\nprotection. For him the Prince of Darkness has obtained the ascendency\nin the affairs of men, and offers impunity to guilt, while protection\nis withdrawn from innocence. The life of such a man is a perpetual\nagony of alarm for himself and for his family. A cloud charged with\nlightning is forever suspended over his head, and no genius can devise\nthe means to turn aside its bolts.\n\nSir, before God, I believe that, in the judgment of an impartial\nposterity, this method of taking evidence, by the cruellest of means\nand for the wickedest of purposes, will be held as atrocious and as\nexecrable as that horrid method of extracting evidence by torture,\nwhich once prevailed, but which now even half-civilized nations\nhave abolished. A brave heart could withhold a false confession,\neven upon the rack. With the images of wife and children before the\neyes, martyrdom for their protection has been sweet. But there is no\nman whom God ever made who will not tremble, and stand aghast with\nconsternation, with the conscious knowledge in his mind that he, his\nwife and children, and all that he holds dear upon earth, are at the\nmercy of every pirate-hearted villain between the Atlantic and the Rio\nGrande; nay, that the government offers inducement to foreign assassins\nto come here, where, with less risk, they can make more money by false\nswearing and judicial kidnapping than they could at home by murder and\nrobbery. Better, a thousand times better, had the constitution allowed\nthe citizen \u201cto be compelled to be a witness against himself,\u201d and\nlaid its prohibitions upon the fabrication of testimony against him in\nhis absence.\n\nThe tenth section of the act declares that this evidence, thus\nobtained under a foreign jurisdiction and in the absence of the\nparty, shall be \u201c_conclusive_.\u201d Now, the legal force and meaning of\nthis provision is, that no amount or weight of evidence, no array of\nthe most unimpeachable witnesses, not even the personal knowledge\nof the commissioner himself, who tries the case, though given under\nthe sanction of an oath, which the law does not require him, as a\ncommissioner, to take, shall be admissible to rebut this \u201cconclusive\u201d\ntestimony. It is not made _prima facie_ evidence merely against the\nrespondent; it does not merely shift the burden of proof, so that the\npresumptive freeman becomes presumptively a slave, and must himself\nestablish the freedom he would possess; but the law magnifies it into\na species of proof that is \u201cconclusive,\u201d--that is, unquestionable,\nirrefragable, omnipotent,--like a miracle of God, not to be disputed.\nAnd this greatest of legal force is given to the worst kind of\nevidence. I say that a law so worthy of abhorrence, so truculent,\nso fiendish, is not to be found upon the statute book of any other\ncivilized nation on the globe.\n\nSuch, too, has been the practical construction given to the law. I\nsee by the papers that, in a late case which occurred at Detroit, the\nrespondent declared himself a free man, and prayed for a continuance,\nto allow him to send to Cincinnati for his free papers. But the\ncommissioner refused the delay, saying that, under this law, even free\npapers from the very man that claimed him would be of no avail; for\nwhere the law made the evidence _conclusive_, nothing could rebut it.\nAny counter evidence must always be admitted, on the hypothesis that\nthe evidence already received may be controlled by it. But what an\ninfinite absurdity to suppose that one mass or body of proof can be\n_conclusive_, over another which is _conclusive_. The law might just as\nwell have made _color_ conclusive, not only that the respondent was a\nslave, but that he ran away from the man who claims him. The law, as it\nstands, is as much a slave-making as it is a slave-catching law.\n\nIt declares that the proceedings shall be \u201csummary;\u201d and it provides\na different rate of compensation, according as the decision is for\nfreedom or against it. On what principle is this difference of\ncompensation founded? Every body can see at a glance that when a\nclaimant can prepare his evidence beforehand and in secret, he would be\na fool not to make out a _prima facie_ case. If the respondent adduces\nno proof, the case goes by default, and judgment, without delay, is\nentered against him. But if the claim is contested, then witnesses are\nto be examined, arguments are to be heard, evidence is to be weighed,\nlegal questions to be investigated, and such a decision made as the\ncommissioner is willing to pronounce before the world. It is only in\nthe last class of cases, the contested class, that the respondent\nwill be discharged. The cases, therefore, that result in freedom will\nordinarily occupy sixfold or tenfold more time, besides requiring\nthe exercise of more legal knowledge and ability, than those which\nterminate fatally to the respondent. Yet for decreeing the freedom of\na man, the fee is but half as much as when a sentence of bondage is\nawarded against him. This surpasses the bribery of Judas by the high\npriests. They had not diabolical wit enough to present a contrast\nbetween right and wrong, as a special stimulus for committing iniquity.\n\nThe \u201csummary manner\u201d of trial provided for by this law, when considered\nin reference to rights so momentous, shocks every Anglo-Saxon mind.\nOne\u2019s blood must all be corrupted in his veins, before he can hear of\nit without indignation. It is the noblest attribute of our race, that\nwe hold civil and religious liberty to be more sacred and more precious\nthan life itself. Yet by what safeguards of constitution, of law, and\nof forms of practice, is life protected amongst us? There must be a\npresentment, by at least twelve sworn men, before a man can be held to\nanswer to a charge by which it can be forfeited. Then come the traverse\njury, the right of peremptory challenge, the assignment of counsel,\nthe right to see the indictment beforehand, and to know the names of\nwitnesses who are to be called against the accused, and compulsory\nprocess to insure the attendance of witnesses in his favor! What noble\nbarriers are these against the oppression of a powerful government,\nand the malignant passions of powerful men! The probable culprit,--the\nman laboring under the most violent suspicion,--though caught with the\nblood-red dagger in his hand over the prostrate body of the victim,\nis guarded by all that human ingenuity has been able to devise; by\nall the knowledge that we can command this side of the omniscience,\nand by all the power this side of the omnipotence of God. Yet in the\nvery community where these rights are reverenced and upheld, a man may\nbe seized without notice, hurried to a tribunal without an hour for\npreparation, and then be borne away a thousand miles, where all that\nlife has of hope and of enjoyment is taken away, and all that it knows\nof misery and of terror is realized.\n\nLet me ask any man who ever had a case in court that was worth\ndefending, whether he was prepared to meet it the first hour he had\nnotice of its existence? A respondent\u2019s witnesses may be resident in\ndifferent states, and distances of hundreds of miles may intervene\nbetween him and them. His proof may consist of deeds, or wills, or\nrecords, which cannot be found or authenticated without delay. His\ndefence may consist of matters of law, which the ablest counsel may\nrequire time and the examination of books to investigate. All these\nobstacles to instantaneous readiness may exist together, and yet the\ninexorable mandate of the law scorns his appeal for that delay on\nwhich his highest interests are suspended, and dooms him to bondage\nbecause he cannot achieve impossibilities. Under such a law, not one\nman in ten who will be arrested, even though he should be free, will be\nprepared to establish his freedom. A great portion of these outcasts\nfrom human justice, I doubt not, are better prepared for the summons of\ninstantaneous death than for this summons of instantaneous trial.\n\nThen the cruel haste in executing judgment! The murderer is allowed a\nseason of respite between the hour of sentence and the hour of death;\nthe debtor may turn out goods to satisfy a creditor\u2019s demands; but the\nalleged fugitive has no reprieve. He has no opportunity to solicit\nmoney to redeem himself, or to negotiate for the ransom of body and\nsoul. Swift and sure as an arrow to its mark, he is speeded on his way\nto the abodes of toil and despair. The witnesses who swore away his\nliberty may have been perjured, but he cannot stop to convict them.\nThe court may have been corrupt, but he cannot remain to impeach it.\nHowever honestly rendered, the judgment may be reversible for error in\nlaw, but he cannot stay to set it aside.\n\nNow, every one must see that where there is so little caution before\ntrial, there should be a liberal opportunity for revision after it. But\nhere is infinite exposure to error with no chance for rectification.\nOverstepping the acts of the common tyrant, there is an infliction\nof the most heinous wrong, with a premeditated purpose that it shall\nnot be repaired. The great and free republic of North America has\ntransferred the unwritten law of Judge Lynch to its statute book.\n\nHowever clear the constitutional obligation of Congress to enact a law\nfor the reclamation of fugitive slaves may be supposed by any one to\nbe, there certainly are limitations to this obligation, which all the\nprinciples of our government forbid the law-maker to transcend.\n\nIn the first place, this constitutional obligation must be strictly\nconstrued. The main and primary object of the constitution was to\nprotect natural rights; but the object of the Fugitive Slave clause was\nto protect a legal right in conflict with natural right. All judges\nof an honorable name, all courts in all civilized communities, have\nrecognized a broad distinction in the principles of interpreting law.\nThey have held that provisions against life and liberty should be\nstrictly construed, while those in favor of life and liberty should be\nliberally construed,--the one so construed as to inflict as little of\npain and privation as possible; the other, to give as much of freedom\nand immunity as possible. These have become maxims, or axioms, of legal\ninterpretation; and in their long and unbroken recognition, it is not\ntoo strong an expression to say, they impetrate and command a strict\nconstruction of that clause in the constitution under which fugitives\nmay be claimed. And the same legal maxims, in regard to all subjects\ntouching life and liberty, bind Congress in legislating under the\nconstitution, as bind the judicial tribunals in administering the law.\n\nYet the Fugitive Slave law contains provisions which there can be no\npretence nor shadow of a pretence that the constitution requires. By\nthe constitution, \u201cNo person held to service or labor in one state,\nescaping into _another_, shall be discharged.\u201d Into _another_ what?\nIndisputably, into another _state_. It must mean _state_, and can mean\nnothing else; for the laws of language admit no other construction.\nThe expression, \u201cNo person held in one _state_, escaping into\n_another_ TERRITORY,\u201d would be not merely ungrammatical and un-English,\nbut nonsensical. No man of common intelligence ever so construed a\nsentence. Yet the sixth section of the act provides not only for the\ncase of slaves escaping from one state into another state, but for\ntheir escape from a state into a _territory_, and for an escape from a\n_territory_ into a state, and for an escape from one _territory_ into\nanother _territory_. Four classes of cases are provided for by the law,\nwhile but one of them finds any warrant in the constitution.\n\nNow let any one take a map of the United States, and see over\nwhat a vast area the law extends, over which the provision in the\nconstitution does not extend. The region is continental over which the\nlaw unconstitutionally extends, and this corresponds with the vast\ninhumanity of the principle which so extends it.\n\nMark another particular in which the provisions of the law go\nbeyond the requirements of the constitution. The constitution says\nthe fugitive shall be \u201cdelivered up.\u201d The law makes provision for\ntransporting him to the claimant\u2019s home. Is there any similar provision\nrespecting any other species of property? If a northern merchant\nrecovers a debt from his southern customer, does the government assume\nthe responsibility of seeing that it is paid to the creditor at his own\nhome? If a northern man is robbed, and the stolen goods are found in\nanother state, does the government transport them back and pay freight?\nThen, why should government interpose in this case to bear costs and\nrisks, unless slavery is so meritorious an institution as to deserve\nthe benefactions as well as the benedictions of freemen?\n\nThen observe how artfully the law is worded, to make the assistance\nrendered to the claimant go beyond any supposed necessity in the case.\n\u201cIf,\u201d it says, \u201cupon affidavit made by the claimant, ... his agent or\nattorney, ... that he has reason to apprehend that such fugitive will\nbe rescued by force, ... before he can take him _beyond the limits of\nthe state in which the arrest is made_, it shall be the duty of the\nofficer ... to remove him _to the state whence he fled_.\u201d Thus, if\ndanger is apprehended, _within the first ten miles_, the government\nshall see the slave safely home, at its own expense, _though it be a\nthousand miles_.\n\nBut besides the unheard-of principle of saddling the government\nwith the expense of prosecuting the private claims of its citizens\nwithin its own jurisdiction, I should like to know what provision\nthe constitution contains, which, though interpreted by the most\nlatitudinarian constructionist, confers any right upon Congress thus to\ntake the money of one citizen to pay the private expenses of another.\nThere is no clause, or phrase, or word in that instrument which favors\nthe idea that the Northern States should bear the expense, as well as\nthe disgrace, of thus remanding our fellow-men into bondage.\n\nBesides, if the limits of the constitution were to be transcended in\norder to deliver an alleged fugitive to his master, would not the\nslightest element of equity, or decency, even, require that when a\nfreeman is condemned to bondage under the law, his expenses, incurred\nin returning to the place where he was plundered of himself, should\nbe reimbursed to him by the government which had failed in its duty\nto protect him? If the claimant of James Hamlet could be supplied\nwith a force, at the government\u2019s expense, to carry him into slavery,\nwhy should not the expense of coming back into a land of freedom be\nreimbursed by the government to Adam Gibson, after one of its venal and\nvillanous instruments had wrested that freedom from him?\n\nThe law also provides for another thing which the supreme court has\nexpressly declared to be unconstitutional, or beyond the power of\nCongress to enact. It provides that any _state_ court of record, or\njudge thereof, in vacation, may take and certify evidence which shall\nbe \u201cconclusive\u201d in regard to two of the three points which are made\nsufficient by the law to prove a man a slave. Thus, the two facts of\nslavery and of escape may be \u201cconclusively\u201d proved by the certificate\nof a judge of a _state_ court, so that the judge before whom the\nalleged fugitive is brought shall, in regard to these facts, exercise\nonly a mere ministerial function. Now, he who has power to take and\nauthenticate evidence, which it is predetermined shall be \u201cconclusive\u201d\nin the case, has power to decide the case. This, in its nature and\nessence, is a judicial power; yet this power is given by the act to\nany _state_ court of record, and to any judge thereof in vacation.\nContrary to this, however, the supreme court has said, \u201cCongress\ncannot vest any portion of the judicial power of the United States\nexcept in courts ordained and established by itself.\u201d--_Martin_ vs.\n_Hunter\u2019s Lessee_, 1 Wheat. 330. \u201cThe whole judicial power of the\nUnited States should be, at all times, vested in some courts created\nunder its authority.\u201d--_Ib._ 331. \u201cThe jurisdiction over such cases,\n[cases arising under the constitution, laws, and treaties of the\nUnited States,] could not exist in the state courts previous to the\nadoption of the constitution, and it could not afterwards be directly\nconferred on them; for the constitution expressly requires the judicial\npower to be vested in courts ordained and established by the United\nStates.\u201d--_Ib._ 335.\n\nYet, though it is expressly declared that Congress cannot vest any part\nof the judicial power of the United States in a state court, the state\ncourts are empowered by this law to take and certify evidence, which is\nmade \u201cconclusive\u201d in the case.\n\nLook at the subject in another of its aspects. Here are some half\nmillion of free colored persons in the free states. _They_ are\nunquestionably free. They possess, as fully as you or I, those\nprerogatives of freedom without which life ceases to be a blessing.\nTheir freedom is guarantied to them by the constitution of the United\nStates, and by the constitutions and laws of the states respectively\nin which they dwell. They certainly are a part of the people. In some\nof the states, as in Massachusetts for instance, the law knows no iota\nof distinction, in any respect, between a black man and a white man;\nbetween one of European and one of African descent. It is the noble\nprivilege of a Massachusetts man to say, that, as all men are equal\nbefore the divine law, so are all men equal within our borders, before\nthe human law.\n\nNow, scattered among this half million, more or less, of free\ncolored people in the free states, there are a few hundreds, or a\nfew thousands if you please, of \u201cfugitives from service or labor,\u201d\nas the constitution cunningly and evasively phrases it; which, being\ninterpreted, means, as the whole world knows, fugitives from toil,\nand fetters, and stripes, and agony; fugitives from ignorance and the\nthick darkness of the intellect; fugitives from moral debasement, and\nfrom that enforced pollution of body and soul that spares neither wife,\nnor mother, nor a daughter\u2019s innocence; fugitives from the disruption\nof family ties, and from the laceration of all human affections;\nfugitives, in fine, from a heathenism of superstition and religious\nblindness into the glorious light of the gospel of Jesus Christ.\n\nNow this free class and this fugitive class belong ethnologically\nto the same race. They speak the same language, and wear the same\ndistinctive characteristics of feature and of form. All the unspeakable\nprivileges, all the sacred titles and immunities of the one class are\nenshrined in the same complexion and in the same contour of person\nthat attend the debasement and privation of the other. The vessels of\nhonor and of glory are moulded into the same shape with the vessels of\ndishonor and of shame.\n\nNow, after this debased class has been created by a wicked system\nof human laws, and after it is mingled with the free class, another\nlaw steps in and decrees that the former shall be remanded to their\nbondage. An awful decree! second in terribleness only to that\nwhich shall divide between the blessed and the accursed before the\njudgment-seat of God. Within the compass of human action, there never\nwas an occasion that demanded more unerring justice and wisdom, that\ninvoked more foresight and solicitude, that appealed more touchingly\nto every sentiment and instinct congenial to liberty, with which God\nhas endowed and ennobled the soul of man, so to devise the law, if law\nthere must be, as not to involve the free in the horrible doom of the\nenslaved. If, in the administration of penal laws, a knowledge of human\nfallibility has forced the maxim into existence and into practice, that\nit is better that ninety-nine guilty persons should escape than that\none innocent man should suffer, ought not the same benign rule to be\nadopted in our legislation whenever there is a possibility of exposing\nthe free to the fearful fate of the enslaved? But instead of this\njealousy and circumspection, what have we? A law whose first utterance\nabjures the distinction between freedom and bondage; a law which brings\nthe whole free colored population of the United States within the\nouter circles of the whirlpool of slavery, that they may be ingulfed\nin its vortex; a law which empowers every villain in the country, by\nfabricating false testimony at his own leisure and convenience, to use\nhis own freedom in order to rob other people of theirs! I aver, that\nbefore any moral tribunal, where right and wrong are weighed in the\nbalances of the sanctuary, there is not a felony described in the whole\nstatute book that is more felonious than such a law.\n\nIt has become an axiom in the administration of justice,--an axiom\nslowly evolved by the wisdom of ages, but now firmly established and\nincorporated into the jurisprudence of every civilized community,--that\nthe ethical policy of the law will tolerate no rule of action that\nopens the door to fraud or crime, but will even vacate solemn contracts\nbetween parties otherwise competent, in its jealousy and apprehension\nof wrong. Hence the law applicable to common carriers, which will\nnot allow a man to exonerate himself from liability even by express\nnotice, lest opportunity should be given for collusion and fraud.\nHence, too, the principle of law which forbids an insolvent debtor to\npay, or even to contract to pay, a _bona fide_ creditor in anticipation\nof bankruptcy. Now, this principle applies with tenfold force to\nlegislators,--withholding and repelling them from passing any law which\nmay involve the innocent in the fate of the guilty, or the free in the\nbondage of the enslaved.\n\nBut the law violates a still deeper principle than these. I do not\nrecollect the instance of a single northern man or northern press,\nutterly false to freedom, and venal as so many of them have been, that\nhas expressed entire satisfaction with the law. They palliate it, they\nstrive, by seductive party and pecuniary appeals, to beguile men into\nits support. They look outside of it for pretexts to hide its inherent\nbaseness; but not one of them, so far as I know, has had the effrontery\nto justify it on its intrinsic merits. Even those northern men who\nvoted for it have sought refuge from the storm of righteous indignation\nthat burst upon them, by alleging that it was an essential ingredient\nin a system of measures, and entered, as a necessary element, into a\ndesirable compromise.\n\nWhen this language is translated, what does it mean? Simply this, and\nno more. California was admitted, and thereby certain political and\ncommercial advantages were gained. This, in legal language, was the\nconsideration. The Fugitive Slave law was passed, and thereby the\nrights of freemen, the property of men in themselves, all the household\nsanctities, all the domestic endearments of half a million of men,\nwere put in peril. This was the equivalent given! A mere barter of the\nholiest interests for worldly advantages! And these interests were\ngiven away by men who did not own them, and therefore had no right to\ntransfer them. The whites, north and south, played a game, and made\nthe black people their stakes. Who authorized the law-makers to derive\na benefit to themselves from doing this infinite wrong to others? Who\ngave them the terrible prerogative of making others suffer for their\npleasure. I say it with reverence, but I still say it with emphasis,\nthat we cannot conceive of God himself as having power to inflict\nvicarious suffering without the free consent of the sufferer! Yet the\natrocities of this law are defended by those who made it, on the ground\nthat they and other white men have secured benefits to themselves by\nsacrificing the liberty, happiness and peace of half a million of their\nfellow-beings of a different color. Cause and counsellor are alike; for\nthe defence is as profligate as the act it defends.\n\nI say, sir, it is the population of African descent in the free states\nwhich is specially put in peril by this law. Occasionally, indeed,\npersons of unmixed white blood are seized and enslaved under it. These\ncases, however, are comparatively rare. But suppose the reverse.\nSuppose circumstances to be such that the whole body of the white\npopulation should be as much endangered by it as the colored people\nnow are. Suppose that not only the white voters themselves, but their\nwives and their children, were as liable to be \u201c_Ingrahamed_,\u201d as the\nblacks; suppose this, I say, and would the existence of the law be\ntolerated for an hour? Would there not be an uprising of the people,\nsimultaneous and universal against it, and such a yell of execration\nas never before burst from mortal lips? The name of every man who had\nvoted for it, or who should defend it, would be entered upon that\napostate list at whose head stands the name of Judas. Christian and\nInfidel, Jew and Gentile, would execrate it alike. Why, then, if they\nwould do this to avert such peril from themselves and their families,\ndo they not do it when their sable brethren are in jeopardy? Alas!\nthere is but one answer! From selfish considerations, from the love of\nwealth, or the love of power, they have discarded that heaven-descended\nmaxim, \u201cWhatever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye the same\nunto them.\u201d\n\nAnd it is this very class of men who have thus abjured the precepts of\nJesus Christ, who have trampled upon the divine doctrines of liberty\nand love, that now so clamorously summon us to an obedience to law.\n\nIn answer to this call, let me say, that true obedience to law is\nnecessarily accompanied and preceded by a reverence for those great\nprinciples of justice and humanity without which all law is despotism.\nHow can a man pretend to any honest regard for the principle of\nobedience to law when he is willing, as in the case of this fugitive\nact, to transcend our constitutional law, and to invade the divine law?\nIt is but an appeal to the lower rule of action to justify a violation\nof the higher. Under the pretext of rendering unto C\u00e6sar the things\nthat are C\u00e6sar\u2019s it denies to God the things that are God\u2019s.\n\nAnd again, a true reverence for law is a general principle, and not an\nisolated fact. It applies to all laws collectively, and not to any\none law in particular. It bestows its greatest homage upon those laws\nthat embrace and confer the most of human welfare; for, were all the\nlaws of a community, or the great majority of them, unrighteous, then\ndisloyalty to law would be the virtue. Can the class of men who demand\nour allegiance to the Fugitive Slave law stand this test? We have usury\nlaws, which not only carry the legal force of statutes, but the moral\npower of the greatest names in legislation and in statesmanship. Are\nthe men in New York, in Philadelphia, and Boston, who are most vehement\nin support of the Fugitive Slave law, signalized for their regard to\nthe statutes against usury?\n\nIs not money lent in all those cities on the same principle that\nwreckers send a rope\u2019s end to a drowning man,--for as much as they can\nextort? It is notorious that among the great body of merchants and\ncapitalists in those cities, interest is regulated by the pressure\nupon the money market, and that no more idea of law mingles with their\ncontracts than in California, where there is no law on the subject.\n\nWe have laws restricting the sale of intoxicating liquors, and designed\nto promote the glorious object of temperance. For which practice\nhave our cities been conspicuous,--for their obedience to these laws\nor for their violation of them? A few years ago, when a question of\nthe constitutionality of a law of Massachusetts for the restraint of\nintemperance arose, did not its two distinguished senators appear in\nthe supreme court of the United States, and make the most strenuous\nexertions to annul the law of their own state, and to open anew the\nflood-gates for overwhelming their own constituents in misery and\nruin,--the selfsame gentlemen who are now so intolerant even of\ndiscussion?\n\nLook at the complaints which come to us every day from the friends\nof a protective tariff. They tell us that our revenue laws are\nfraudulently and systematically evaded; and they number the violations\nof these laws by thousands and tens of thousands. Who are the\nviolators? Not men living in the country; not the farmers and mechanics\nand laborers,--the substratum of our strength and the origin of our\npower;--but they are the city merchants, the getters-up of \u201cUnion\nmeetings,\u201d and the members of \u201csafety and vigilance committees,\u201d who\nare so earnest in inculcating those lessons of obedience by their\nprecepts, which they have done so little to recommend by their example.\n\nThe Southern States are loud in their calls upon us to execute the\nFugitive Slave law. But what examples have they set us on the subject\nof obedience to law? I think I may be pardoned for mentioning a few\ncases, to show how their preaching and practice tally.\n\nIn 1831, the legislature of Georgia offered a bribe of _five thousand\ndollars_ to any one who would arrest, and bring to trial and\nconviction, in Georgia, a citizen of Massachusetts, named William Lloyd\nGarrison. This law was \u201capproved\u201d by William Lumpkin, governor, on the\n26th December, 1831. Mr. Garrison had never stepped foot within the\nlimits of Georgia, and therefore it was not a reward for his trial and\nconviction, but for his abduction and murder.\n\nAt a meeting of slaveholders, held at Sterling, in the same state,\nSeptember 4, 1835, it was formally recommended to the governor, to\noffer, by proclamation, the five thousand dollars appropriated by the\nact of 1831, for the apprehension of either of ten persons, citizens,\nwith one exception, of New York, or Massachusetts, whose names were\ngiven; not one of whom, it was not even pretended, had ever been within\nthe limits of Georgia.\n\nThe Milledgeville, Georgia, \u201cFederal Union,\u201d of February 1, 1836,\ncontained an offer of $10,000 for kidnapping A. A. Phelps, a clergyman\nof the city of New York.\n\nThe committee of vigilance, (another \u201ccommittee of vigilance,\u201d) of\nthe parish of East Feliciana, offered, in the Louisville Journal, of\nOctober 15, 1835, $50,000 to any person who would deliver into their\nhands Arthur Tappan, a merchant of New York.\n\nAt a public meeting of the citizens of Mount Meigs, Alabama, August 13,\n1836, the _honorable_ Bedford Ginress in the chair, a reward of $50,000\nwas offered for the apprehension of the same Arthur Tappan, or of Le\nRoy Sunderland, a Methodist clergyman of New York.\n\nRepeated instances have occurred in which the governors of slave\nstates,--Virginia, Georgia, Kentucky, Alabama, &c.,--have made\nrequisitions upon the governors of free states, under the second\nsection of the fourth article of the constitution, for the surrender\nof free citizens, _as fugitives from justice_, when it was well known\nthat the citizens so demanded were not within the limits of the slave\nstates at the time when the alleged offence was committed, and, in\nsome instances, had never been there in their lives,--high executive\nperversions of the constitution of the United States, by chief\nmagistrates who had sworn to support it!\n\nFor nearly twenty years past the post-office laws of the United States\nhave been systematically violated in slave states, the mail bags\nrifled, and their contents seized and publicly burned; and, in some\ninstances, these violations have been enjoined, under heavy penalties,\nby a law of the states. There are several of the slave states on whose\nstatute books these laws, commanding a violation of the post-office,\nstand to-day.\n\nDuring Mr. Adams\u2019s administration, a man by the name of Tassels, in\nGeorgia, was adjudged to be hanged, under a law of the state, as\nclearly unconstitutional as was ever passed. A writ of error was sued\nout from the supreme court of the United States, in order to bring\nthe case before that tribunal for revision. But the state of Georgia\nanticipated the service of the writ, and made sure of its victim by\nhanging him extemporaneously.\n\nWithin a few weeks past,--the accounts having but just now reached\nus,--an aged and most respectable individual of the name of Harris, a\ncitizen of New Hampshire, has been tried by a mob in South Carolina,\nand tarred and feathered, because he happened to have _in his trunk_\na sermon which had been sent to him by one of his acquaintances, a\nclergyman at the north; though he had never showed the sermon to a\nsingle individual, nor whispered a word of its contents. Another\nman, a Dr. Coles, belonging to Boston, who had been lecturing on the\nsubject of physiology, was, within a few days, seized and carried\nbefore a magistrate, in the same state, his trunks rifled, the private\nletters sent to him by his wife and family publicly read, with the most\nindecent comments, and all without any shadow of reasonable suspicion\nagainst him.\n\nThe unconstitutional imprisonment of northern seamen in southern ports\nis an occurrence so frequent, and so universally known, that I need not\nspend time to enumerate or to describe the cases.\n\nThe President of the United States has made proclamation, and proffered\nthe military and naval force of the United States, to aid any southern\nslave owner in reducing his fugitive slave to a new bondage; but I have\nnot heard that he has made any similar proclamation, or manifested\nany anxiety for the support of that part of the constitution which\nsays that \u201cthe citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the\nprivileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.\u201d\n\nNow, with a few exceptions, it is these very classes of men who\nviolate the laws against extortion and usury; who break down the\nbarriers against the desolations of intemperance; who, almost alone of\nall our citizens, are implicated in the breach of the revenue laws; who\nannul the post-office laws of the United States; who offer rewards for\nfree northern citizens, that they may get them in their clutch to lynch\nand murder them; who demand free citizens as fugitives from justice,\nin states where they have never been, and who imprison free citizens\nand sell them into slavery;--it is these classes of men who are now so\nsuddenly smitten with a new sense of the sacredness of law, and of the\nduty of obedience to law,--not of the laws of God, not even of the laws\nof man, in general, but of this most abominable of all enactments, the\nFugitive Slave law in particular.\n\nI do not cite the above cases from among a thousand similar ones, as\nany justification or apology for forcible and organized resistance\nto law by those who even constructively can be said to have given it\ntheir consent. But the words of a preacher do not \u201ccome mended from his\ntongue,\u201d when his name is a scandal among men for his violation of all\nthe precepts he enjoins.\n\nAnd now, sir, when I am called upon to support such a law as this, or\nto desist from opposing it in all constitutional ways, while it lasts,\nmy response is, repeal the law, that I may no longer be called upon to\nsupport it. In the name of my constituents, and by the memory of that\n\u201cold man eloquent,\u201d in whose place it is my fortune to stand, I demand\nits repeal. I demand it,--\n\nBecause it is a law which wars against the fundamental principles of\nhuman liberty.\n\nBecause it is a law which conflicts with the constitution of\nthe country, and with all the judicial interpretations of that\nconstitution, wherever they have been applied to the white race.\n\nBecause it is a law which introduces a fatal principle into the code\nof evidence, and into judicial practice,--a principle, before which no\nman\u2019s liberties and no man\u2019s rights of any kind can stand.\n\nBecause it is a law which is abhorrent to the moral and religious\nsentiments of a vast majority of the community that is called upon to\nenforce it.\n\nBecause the life and character of so many of its apologists and\nsupporters are themselves potent arguments against whatever they may\nadvocate.\n\nBecause it is a law which, if executed in the free states, divests them\nof the character of free states, and makes them voluntary participators\nin the guilt of slaveholding.\n\nBecause it is a law which disgraces our country in the eyes of the\nwhole civilized world, and gives plausible occasion to the votaries of\ndespotic power to decry republican institutions.\n\nBecause it is a law which forbids us to do unto others as we would have\nthem do to us, and which makes it a crime to feed the hungry, to clothe\nthe naked, and to visit and succor the sick and the imprisoned.\n\nBecause it is a law which renders the precepts of the gospel and the\nteachings of Jesus Christ seditious; and, were the Savior and his band\nof disciples now upon earth, there is but one of them who would escape\nits penalties by pretending \u201cto conquer his prejudices.\u201d And, finally,\n\nBecause the advocates and defenders of this law have been compelled to\nplace its defence upon the express ground that the commandments of men\nare of higher authority than the ordinances of God.\n\nIn Hooker\u2019s sublime description of law, when understood in its generic\nsense, he says,--\n\n\u201cOf law there can be no less acknowledged than that her seat is the\nbosom of God, her voice the harmony of the world; all things in heaven\nand earth do her homage, the very least as feeling her care, and the\ngreatest as not exempted from her power; both angels, and men, and\ncreatures, of what condition soever, though each in different sort and\nmanner, yet all with uniform consent, admiring her as the mother of\ntheir peace and joy.\u201d\n\nNow, sir, with these glorious attributes of \u201claw,\u201d I say the Fugitive\nSlave law of the last session possesses not one quality in common, nor\nin similitude. To say that the seat of such a law is in the \u201cbosom of\nGod,\u201d is the intensest blasphemy. To say that it is \u201cthe harmony of\nthe world,\u201d is to declare that the world is a sphere of ubiquitous and\nomnipotent wrong, uncheckered by any thought of justice, and devoid of\nany emotion of love. To say that \u201call things in heaven do homage\u201d to\nsuch a law, is to affirm of the realms of light what is true only of\nthe realms of darkness. The \u201cleast\u201d do not \u201cfeel its care,\u201d but tremble\nand wail beneath its cruelty; while the \u201cgreatest\u201d and the strongest\n_are_ \u201cexempt from its power;\u201d for they made it not for themselves\nbut for others. To no class of \u201ccreatures,\u201d rational or irrational,\nhuman or divine, can it prove to be the \u201cmother of peace and joy;\u201d but\nwherever it extends, and as long as it exists, it will continue to be\nan overflowing Marah of bitterness and strife.\n\nAs the great name of Hooker has been profanely cited in behalf of this\nlaw, I will close by quoting his distinction between those laws of\nhuman governments which ought to be obeyed, and those which ought not:--\n\n----\u201cwhich laws,\u201d says he, \u201cwe must obey, _unless there be reason\nshowed which may necessarily enforce that_ THE LAW OF REASON OR OF GOD\nDOTH ENJOIN THE CONTRARY.\u201d\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[20] Such also is the law in Louisiana. See _Louis_ vs. _Marot_, 9\nLouis. Rep. 473; _Smith_ vs. _Smith_, 13 Louis. Rep. 441.\n\n\n\n\n                                SPEECH\n\n ON THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW, DELIVERED AT LANCASTER, MASSACHUSETTS, MAY\n 19, 1851, PENDING THE CANVASS FOR A MEMBER OF CONGRESS FOR THE FOURTH\n CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT.\n\n\n  FELLOW-CITIZENS;\n\nWe are assembled on a great occasion and for a great purpose. The\nelection of a member of Congress, indeed, is not an extraordinary\nevent; but it is extraordinary that principles of the most vital\nimportance to the honor of Massachusetts, and to the cause of human\nliberty throughout the world, should be involved in a local election.\nSuch, however, is now the fact.\n\nGentlemen, the assertion and the recognition of the rights of man have\nmade great progress among the nations of Europe within the recollection\nof many who are now before me. Notwithstanding the partition of Poland\nby allied robbers, and the obliteration of that kingdom from the map of\nEurope; notwithstanding Hungarian subjugation to Austrian despotism,\nand many other atrocious crimes against humanity, such as nations only\ncan commit; for they are too vast and monstrous to be perpetrated by\nany individual,--I say, notwithstanding these facts, the great fabric\nof human liberty has been rising in Europe, while the solid structures\nof despotism have been disintegrating and making ready for their fall.\n\nBut truth compels me to acknowledge that, during the last three\nquarters of a century, our course, in this country, has been downward.\nWhile among the other nations of Christendom the altar-fires of\nliberty have been kindling and burning with a brighter flame, ours\nhave been waning. At the foundation of our government an institution\nexisted amongst us utterly irreconcilable with the fundamental\nprinciples of the government itself. But it was then limited in its\nextent, and its spirit nowhere existed in great intensity. Even those\nwho cherished it most were ashamed of it; and in those provisions of\nthe constitution which were designed for its temporary protection, a\ncommon regard for decency forbade the mention of its name. Fatally to\nour own peace and honor, that which was then regarded as temporary\nand local, now threatens to be abiding and universal. From speaking\nof slavery with hushed breath, its bold abettors now shout forth its\npraises. From providing for the extermination of the African slave\ntrade, they have converted the slave states into another Africa, this\nside the tropics; and by the successful robbery of a neighboring\nrepublic, they seek to create a new America, so that the slave trade,\nonce abolished and declared piracy, may be revived and legalized.\nThe Middle Passage is to be transferred from the ocean to the land.\nMaryland, Virginia, Kentucky, &c., are to be the Gold Coast, Benin, and\nthe Galinas; the place of supply, the place of demand, and the highways\nof commerce between them are to be within our own borders and protected\nby the American flag; and that horrid traffic which all the leading\nnations of Christendom united in declaring to be a felony punishable\nwith death, is now to be maintained and defended amongst ourselves,\nunder penalty of death and a dissolution of the Union.\n\nNor does it suffice that the tide of slavery should rise and overflow\nthe vast and uninhabited regions of the west. It surges up against\nthe free states themselves, and all the dikes and barriers of that\nconstitutional law which we have been enacting for seventy-five\nyears, cannot stay its flood. We thought that Massachusetts was the\nimpregnable citadel of freedom; but unconstitutional and inhuman laws,\ndictated by slaveholders, are now enforced amongst us, and at our very\ndoors; and our services are commanded for their execution.\n\nThank God, there is a part of our people who, while they suffer,\nresist. Only a portion amongst us have reached that lowest depth of\ndegradation, where they surrender, not their limbs only, but their\nwills, to the hateful service of their masters. Slavery has done its\nperfect work only when the soul is enslaved. I rejoice to believe that\nwe have not only seven thousand in this our Massachusetts Israel, who\nhave not bowed the knee to Baal, but seven hundred thousand; and recent\nevents foretell not only an increasing number, but a more determined\nopposition.\n\nWhy is it, fellow-citizens, that Massachusetts stands first, or among\nthe first, in 1851, in her hostility to the Fugitive Slave law? I\nanswer, for the very reason that she stood first in her hostility\nto the encroachments of the British crown in 1776. And in less than\nseventy-five years from this time, those who oppose and those who\ndefend this inhuman law, will stand, historically, as wide asunder, and\nwill share as high an honor or suffer as deep an ignominy, as is now\nawarded to the lovers of freedom and the minions of power who lived at\nthe era of the revolution. Let all young men beware not to be seduced\nby any temptations of immediate profit or mistaken honor, to lift a\nhand in defence of this law. If they do, then, before they have lived\nout half their lives, they will be as ready as old Cranmer to thrust\nthe offending member into the flames, and to say with him, \u201cThis hand,\nthis wicked hand, has offended.\u201d\n\nGentlemen, we in Massachusetts are a Union-loving, and law-abiding\npeople. Mr. Webster and his \u201cretainers\u201d may spare their breath in\nexhorting us to abide by the Union. Such a work, in this commonwealth,\nis a work of supererogation. He knows, and they know, that the number\nof disunionists in this state can be counted on a man\u2019s fingers\nand toes. Whatever influence they exert must flow from their zeal,\ntheir talents, and their private character; for they derive none\nfrom numerical force. Were they all to settle in one of our small\ntowns, they would be out-voted by its inhabitants. I regard these\never-repeated appeals made to Massachusetts men and to New England men\nto stand by the Union, as not merely obtrusive, but as affrontive and\ninsulting. Besides, when a man undertakes the mission of going round\nthe country, preaching honesty, or temperance, or chastity, he provokes\nthe inquiry whether he is more honest, temperate, or continent than\nthose whom he exhorts. If the union of these states now is, or has\never been verging towards a point of danger, it is solely and only\nbecause ambitious men and mercenary men at the north have given it that\ndirection by recognizing southern threats and bravadoes as realities,\nand thus encouraging them. Let the greatest coward see that his threats\nare acknowledged as verities, and he will adopt the cheap mode of\nthreatening instead of the hazardous one of acting. Could the Chinese\nhave frightened away the British fleet by their battery of wooden\ncannon, having the middle of the ends painted black for a muzzle, they\nwould have been fools to incur the expense of brass or iron. But John\nBull did not care whether the cannon were of wood or of metal, and at\nhis first fire the Celestials scampered. But here, when a few men in a\nfew states pointed their wooden guns at us, Mr. Webster, General Cass,\nand others, for their own ambitious purposes, cried out that the Union\nwas in danger. I say, then, if the union of these states ever has been\nin any proximity to danger, it was not from menaces uttered by the\nsouth, but from northern indorsement of them. If northern leaders had\ndishonored instead of indorsing this spurious paper, it never would\nhave got into circulation.\n\nWe are not only Union-loving men, but, as I said before, we are\nlaw-abiding men. Had this not been so, not all the fleets and armies in\nthe world could have carried Thomas Sims into bondage. So intimately\nblended is the reverence for law with the very soul of our people,\nthat if you could convince them that a statute has legal force and is\nbinding upon the conscience, I verily believe our juries would give a\nverdict in favor of Shylock, though the pound of flesh which he claimed\nwere to be carved from their own bosoms. This side of a just cause\nfor revolution, they will yield submission to all laws enacted by the\ngovernment, with one single exception. The exception I mean, embraces\nthose laws of men which are clearly contrary to the law of God. And I\ntrust the time is not now, and never will be, when the children of the\nPuritans will obey any commandment of human origin if it conflicts with\na divine command, though they have to lie down in lions\u2019 dens or walk\nthrough furnace fires, as the penalty of disobedience.\n\nBut with this sentiment of reverence for law is another sentiment,\nwhich is its proper attendant and brother,--I mean a desire and a\ndetermination to know what that is which is called _law_; what it is\nthat claims this prerogative of controlling the will and challenging\nthe conscience. It is in this spirit that they have discussed and mean\nto discuss the Fugitive Slave law, and to bring it, Protestant fashion,\nto the test of individual judgment and conscience.\n\nI have no need to repeat to you the general provisions of this inhuman\nenactment. No lover of liberty can read them without having their\natrocious character burned into his mind ineffaceably. You know that\nit assumes to dispose of the highest interests of human liberty,--the\nliberty of soul as well as the liberty of person;--and you know\nthat it also assumes to dispose of the most precious interests of\nproperty,--the property that a man has in himself and in all his\ncapacities of physical enjoyment and suffering as well as his property\nin his money or his goods;--without a single one of those safeguards\nand protections which the constitution of the country builds up like a\nrampart of defence around us all. This enactment, too, is no theoretic\naffair; it is no dead letter on the statute book. It is a living\nmonster, uncaged and turned loose amongst us, to rob and devour at its\nwill.\n\nNow, I have two objections to this law, which absolve me from all\nobligations to execute it, or, in any way or manner, to assist in\nexecuting it. First, I believe it to be contrary to the law of God,\nwhich, God helping me, shall be the rule of my conduct, though I\nshould scatter political treasons as the autumn wind scatters leaves.\nIn his dread description of the judgment day, Jesus Christ makes the\ndistinction between saints and sinners to turn upon the fact, whether\nthey have fed the hungry, clothed the naked, and visited those who were\nsick and in prison. And who so hungry as those who do not own, and\ncannot own a morsel of bread? Who so naked as those who do not own, and\ncannot own a shred of a garment to protect them from cold, or from the\nlascivious eye? And what confinement was ever so hopeless as southern\nslavery, what prison was ever so deep as that prison-house which holds\nthree millions of our fellow-beings within its melancholy walls,--them\nand their posterity forever? He that refuses the common acts of\nhospitality to these victims, when fleeing from their bondage, denies\nhis Lord and Master. He that refuses them, disobeys every precept of\nthe Savior, and has no more right to call himself a Christian, than\nhas the Fejee islander, when he rises from his cannibal banquet. He is\nthe Levite who passes by on the other side.\n\nAnd next, I hold this law to be contrary to the constitution of the\nUnited States, and therefore of no binding force upon my conscience or\nmy conduct. I do not mean to say by this that I shall make forcible\nopposition to it. I take the Quaker ground upon this subject; I will\nnot assist to execute it, though I shall suffer it to execute itself on\nme.\n\nThe constitutionality of this law has been extensively discussed.\nBut there is this broad difference between the arguments of those\nwho affirm and those who deny that it is constitutional. Those who\ndeny it, argue the question upon its merits, upon principle, upon\nthose legal relations and analogies that so nobly characterize the\nEnglish law on the subject of human liberty. But those who affirm the\nconstitutionality of the law, base their argument upon technicalities\nand upon precedents, and they cannot sustain themselves for a moment\non any other ground. They found themselves, in the first place, upon\nthe statutory precedent of 1793, which was an act passed with very\nlittle deliberation, as its history shows, and passed, too, when it\nwas expected on all hands that slavery would soon die out. In the next\nplace, they rely upon the judicial precedent of Prigg\u2019s case, which was\nmade by a bench of slaveholding judges, and some of the points which\nthe court professed to decide did not arise in the case.\n\nNow the statutory precedent covers only a part of the case; for some\nof the most hateful features of the law of 1850 are not to be found\nin the law of 1793; and the supreme court has never passed upon the\nlaw of 1850 at all. So two points are clear in the outset, that the\nchampions of the law cannot get along without the precedents, and\nthe precedents, in several most important particulars, fail them\naltogether.[21]\n\nThis question has lately been discussed in our own vicinity. The\nliberty of a resident of Massachusetts,--a man every way entitled to a\njury trial by our constitution and laws, as much as you or I,--has been\nsacrificed by a United States commissioner in the city of Boston.[22]\nHe has decided in favor of the law. You would naturally suppose that,\nin order to shelter himself from the odium of such a decision, he would\nput all personal and all collateral resources into requisition to make\nthe case as plausible as ingenuity can make it. It is said, too, that\nMr. Webster and Mr. Webster\u2019s friends, and the commissioner\u2019s friends\nhave contributed of their strength to help the debility of the case.\nWhile the cause was pending before him, one of the points involved\nin it was brought before the supreme court of Massachusetts, and\nalso before the circuit court of the United States. The commissioner\nadjourned the case over after all the arguments of counsel were\nin. He thereby gave himself an opportunity for preparation and for\nconsultation. I am taking no exception to all this. I am glad it was\ndone. I suppose we now have the breadth and length and strength of what\ncan be alleged in favor of the law. I never feel so confident of my\nconclusions as when strong men have taken the opposite side, and have\nfailed to sustain it.\n\nNow, to this decision of the commissioner, made under such incitements,\nand with such opportunities, I propose to invite your attention.\nThe discussion may be dry, but it will not be uninteresting; for it\ninvolves matters as important as the liberty of the body and the\nliberty of the will, and the liberty and life of the human soul.\n\nIt may be said that these are legal and constitutional questions,\nand, therefore, that unprofessional men cannot understand them. But\nmost, if not all the points which I shall bring to your attention,\nare matters of intuition; questions wholly within the jurisdiction\nof plain common sense, and such, therefore, as can be decided by you\nas well as by lawyers or judges. And if I can convince you of the\ninconclusiveness of some parts of this decision, of the legal Jesuitism\nof other parts, and of the self-contradiction that pervades the whole,\nyou will not hesitate to set it aside, not as null and void merely, but\nas discreditable to the profession of the law, and dishonorable to the\nState of Massachusetts.\n\nThe first point which the commissioner discusses is, whether in\nseizing, by his warrant, a man actually free, in deciding, by his\njudgment, the exact question, whether that man were a slave, and in\nsending him, by his certificate, where the lash and the law of slavery\napply to his body and his spirit, he were exercising \u201c_judicial\npower_,\u201d as conferred by the constitution of the United States upon\nsuch courts as _Congress_ should establish. He at first decides that\nhe does _not_ exercise such power. This was well; for he knows that\nhe was never appointed, nor commissioned, nor sworn, nor is paid,\nnor removable from office for mal-conduct, as is prescribed by the\nconstitution in the case of judges. Badly heroic as he was, _in fact_,\nin exercising jurisdiction over a human being, and delivering him\nover into hopeless and irremediable bondage, he was not mad enough to\narrogate, _in terms_, the prerogative of \u201c_judicial power_.\u201d\n\nBut what says his superior, the attorney-general of the United States?\nIn an elaborate opinion, given by order of the President of the United\nStates,--an opinion which, as I suppose, passed under the supervision\nof the whole cabinet, and therefore may be presumed to have the\nauthority of Mr. Webster and the other constitutional advisers of\nthe President, and which certainly had the sanction of the President\nhimself, for he acted upon it,--in this opinion the attorney-general\nsays,--\n\n \u201cThese officers, [the commissioners,] and each of them, have _judicial\n power_, and jurisdiction to hear, examine, and decide the case.\u201d\n\n \u201cThe certificate to be granted to the owner is to be regarded as\n the act and _judgment_ of a _judicial tribunal_, having competent\n _jurisdiction_.\u201d\n\n \u201cCongress has constituted _a tribunal_, with _exclusive jurisdiction_\n to determine summarily, and without appeal, who are fugitives from\n service.\u201d\n\n \u201cThe _judgment_ of the _tribunal_, created by this act, is conclusive\n upon all _tribunals_.\u201d\n\nNow, which is right, the attorney-general, with the President and\nhis cabinet as indorsers, or Mr. Commissioner Curtis? I submit to\nyou that the former were clearly right, so far as this,--that when\nthe constitution declares that \u201cno person shall be deprived of life,\nliberty, or property, without due process of law,\u201d (which imports a\ntrial by jury,) then neither Adam Gibson, nor Thomas Sims, nor any\nother alleged fugitive can be so deprived, without trial by jury,\n_and the judgment or sentence of the \u201cjudicial power\u201d thereupon_. The\nfollowing position has never been answered, and I think never can be,\nnamely, that if a resident of Massachusetts can be deprived of his\n\u201cliberty and property,\u201d without a trial by jury and a judgment of a\n_court_, then he may be deprived of his life also; for \u201clife, liberty,\nand property\u201d are secured in the same section, in the same sentence,\nand by the same safeguard.\n\nThe attorney-general held that, as the power exercised by the\ncommissioner was a \u201cjudicial power,\u201d it deprived the party of all\nbenefit from the _habeas corpus_. And there was some plausibility in\nthis, though, I think, no soundness. But our defenders of the law\nhold that this sending of a man into bondage is not a part of the\n\u201cjudicial power,\u201d and yet that it deprives him of all benefit of the\n_habeas corpus_. That is, they hold that a man may be deprived of his\nliberty and property, (and of course of his life,) _by a ministerial\nproceeding_, not having its origin in any court, and not to be\nprosecuted to final judgment in any court, and yet that all the courts\nin the land, competent to furnish relief in any other case, can afford\nnone in this. If this be true, if a proceeding, held and acknowledged\nby the officer who initiates and conducts it to be a ministerial\nproceeding, not originated by a court, and never to be carried before\na court, does thus take away the trial by jury, and the security of\nhaving one\u2019s liberty and property adjudicated upon by a \u201ccourt,\u201d and\nrenders the writ of _habeas corpus_ an empty form, then, indeed, we may\nbid \u201cfarewell, a long farewell\u201d to all our liberties. An unprincipled\nmajority of Congress has only to pass a law that any man may be\nimprisoned or hanged on an executive warrant, and that the hireling\nmarshal or commissioner shall suffer no \u201cmolestation by any process\nissued by any court, judge, magistrate, or other person whomsoever,\u201d\nand despotic power will be enthroned here as effectually as it ever was\nin England in the bloody days of the Stuarts. Jeffries was at least a\njudge, though he acted like a commissioner.\n\nWho could have imagined, eight months ago, that a _ministerial_\nproceeding could put a citizen beyond remedy or reach of our _courts_?\n\nI now come to a position in the commissioner\u2019s argument which is not\nonly transparently fallacious, but is contradicted by himself, in the\nsame opinion, again and again. I shall offer a series of objections to\nit.\n\nThe point was pressed upon him by counsel that he was exercising\n\u201cjudicial power.\u201d To maintain this, a passage was quoted from\nPrigg\u2019s case, in which the court say, \u201cA claim made by the owner out\nof possession for the delivery of a slave ... constitutes, in the\nstrictest sense, a controversy between the parties, and a case arising\nunder the constitution of the United States, within the express\ndelegation of judicial power, given by that instrument.\u201d Can any thing\nbe more explicit and conclusive, to prove that the commissioner was\nthen presuming to exercise a part of the \u201cjudicial power\u201d conferred by\nCongress exclusively upon courts? And how does he answer it? In this\nway, and in this way only. He says the court decide two points:--\n\nFirst,--That a claim for a fugitive slave is a case arising under the\nconstitution of the United States, and so within the grant of \u201cjudicial\npower\u201d as given by the constitution; and\n\nSecond,--\u201cThat being such a case, belonging to the judicial power of\nthe Union, it was for Congress to regulate and prescribe the remedy,\nthe form of proceedings, and the mode and extent in which the judicial\npower of the Union should be called into activity.\u201d\n\nHe then declares his full admission of _both_ these propositions. And\nhow does he answer the _first_ one, which, at a blow, unseats him from\nhis usurped bench? He says, \u201cThe counsel for the prisoner have insisted\nmost strenuously on the first of these positions, but have said nothing\nwith regard to the second.\u201d And what need had the counsel to say any\nthing about the second, _the first being admitted_? The supreme court\nhad said, and he acknowledged it, that every case like the one then\nbefore him was a \u201ccase arising under the constitution of the United\nStates, within the express delegation of judicial power given by that\ninstrument.\u201d This was equivalent to saying that it was a case which\ncould not be adjudicated upon by a commissioner, because a commissioner\nis not a judge,--is no court nor part of a court. The plain statement\nof the commissioner\u2019s language is this: The supreme court declare that\nI have no jurisdiction in this case; but because the counsel said\nnothing about another point to be found in the opinion of the court,\ntherefore I will take jurisdiction.\n\nBut again; this reply of the commissioner, that the counsel said\nnothing about the second point, (when he had acknowledged the validity\nof the first, which was fatal,) is not merely an evasion; it is founded\nupon a false meaning attributed by him to the second point. He says\nthe court held that it was \u201cfor Congress to regulate and prescribe\nthe remedy, the form of proceedings, and the mode and extent in which\nthe judicial power of the Union should be called into activity.\u201d\nSuppose it was for Congress to do this. Might they not transcend their\npower when doing it? and does not his admission of the first point\nprove that they have transcended their power?--the very point then in\nquestion. The two things cannot stand together. If the trial of the\nissue, \u201cfugitive slave or not,\u201d be, \u201cin the strictest sense,\u201d \u201cwithin\nthe express delegation of judicial power given\u201d by the constitution,\nthen this ministerial commissioner cannot exercise it, and Congress\ncannot empower him to exercise it. Besides, the decision of the court\nwas made in 1842. The law, whose constitutionality they had then\nunder discussion, was passed in 1850. Did the court in \u201942 declare,\nor could they declare, that any law _thereafter_ passed by Congress\non this subject should be held constitutional? Did their decision act\nprospectively, and adjudge a law to be constitutional, which was to be\npassed eight years afterwards? So far from this, the points then under\ndiscussion,--namely, the power of a commissioner to adjudge a case more\nimportant than life or death, and the obligation of a commissioner to\nhear _ex parte_ evidence, and to be concluded by it when heard,--these\nquestions did not come before the supreme court in \u201942, and have never\nbeen before the supreme court at all. But because that court had said,\nyears before, that it belongs to Congress to prescribe the mode of\nrecovering fugitive slaves, _therefore_, says the commissioner, if\nCongress should vest this power in commissioners, (and in slave traders\nor pirates just as well,) it would be valid. And because the counsel\ndid not answer this point, the commissioner decides an admitted point,\nconclusive in their favor, against them.\n\nBut this is not all. After declaring, in the first part of the opinion,\nhis full conviction that the delivery of an alleged fugitive comes\nwithin \u201cthe express delegation of judicial power,\u201d he uses, farther on,\nthe following language: \u201cIt would seem,\u201d says he, \u201cthat it only remains\nto inquire whether the act of 1850 authorizes or requires any thing\nmore than a summary ministerial proceeding in aid of the right secured\nby the constitution, namely, the right of removal.\u201d And he holds that\nit does not. The act which, in the first part of the opinion, was\nacknowledged to belong, \u201cin the strictest sense,\u201d to the \u201cjudicial\npower,\u201d has now ceased to be \u201c_any thing more_ than a summary\nministerial proceeding.\u201d\n\nAnd again he says, \u201cI have endeavored, in the foregoing discussion,\nto show that this is a summary ministerial proceeding,\u201d &c. \u201cIf\nthis be so, _and I can entertain no doubt that it is_,\u201d &c. This\nsudden transmigration from a judge to an executioner, from one who\nacknowledged that the delivery of an alleged fugitive is an act of\n\u201cjudicial power,\u201d to one who holds that it is NOT \u201c_any thing more_\nthan a summary ministerial proceeding,\u201d may suit a disciple of\nPythagoras, or the priests of the Hindoo religion, but it ill becomes\nan expounder of American jurisprudence.\n\nI proceed to another point in the commissioner\u2019s decision, namely, the\nnature and authority of \u201cjudicial power;\u201d and when I have discussed it,\nI shall submit to your good sense whether I do him any injustice in\nsaying that it is most perspicuously fallacious and lucidly absurd.\n\n\u201cIn all governments formed upon the English model,\u201d says he, \u201cthere\nis a certain class of inquiries, [powers?] judicial in their nature,\nbut which are confided to officers not constituting a part of the\njudiciary, strictly so called.\u201d (I do not like this substitution of\nthe word \u201cinquiries\u201d for \u201cpowers.\u201d If any thing under heaven should\nbe called a _power_, the prerogative of sending a human being,\npresumptively free, into bondage, is surely one.) He then instances\ncertain officers in Great Britain, who, though not judges, perform,\nas he says, certain judicial functions. A brief remark will suffice\nfor this. Great Britain, having no written constitution, the current\nof its legislative enactments and its judicial decisions makes its\nconstitution. If, then, it has been the prevailing practice of that\ngovernment to confer any given description of powers upon any given\nclass of officers, then that is what the British constitution allows\nand approves.\n\nBut we have a written constitution, and therefore are not to tolerate\na law, (as in the case of this Fugitive Slave law,) which is repugnant\nto its fundamental provisions. By this constitution, all legislative\npowers therein granted are vested in Congress; executive power in\na President, and judicial power in the courts. The constitution of\nMassachusetts is equally explicit. It says, \u201cIn the government of\nthis commonwealth the legislative department shall never exercise the\nexecutive and judicial powers, or either of them; the executive shall\nnever exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them;\nthe judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers,\nor either of them; to the end it may be a government of laws, and not\nof men.\u201d\n\nIn both these constitutions, the three functions of government, namely,\nto legislate, to adjudicate, and to execute, are expressly recognized;\nand the _whole_ of their distinctive powers are lodged in separate\ndepartments. No mention is made of any hybrid or mongrel class, half\njudicial and half executive, or half ministerial and half judicial,\nor compounded of aliquot parts of each. Such an officer, under either\nconstitution, would be a monster; he would hold the same relation to\ntheir legitimate functionaries that Caliban does to the human race;\nand, if created for executing the Fugitive Slave law, that half devil\nand half beast would be the fitting prototype.\n\nThe commissioner professes to have found a class of cases, both under\nour state and national constitutions, where powers, \u201cjudicial in\ntheir nature, and special in their purpose, may be confided to the\ndetermination of officers who are not judges.\u201d On this point he has\nexpended himself. Here lay the pressure and travail of his case. Seeing\nthat, in deciding the great issue before him, \u201cslave or free,\u201d he was\nexercising judicial power, and in ordering an armed force to convoy\nthe victim to his house of bondage he was exercising ministerial or\nexecutive power, (thus blending the functions which both constitutions\nhave separated,) the commissioner felt that he must find some analogy\nor some precedent to cover up this obvious violation of all principle,\nor his argument was in ruins. It is in ruins; for he has found no such\nprecedent, and cannot find any.\n\nThe instances he cites from Massachusetts are,--1. Sheriffs, who may\npreside over juries when assessing damages for laying out highways, and\nmay decide such questions of law as arise on the trial; 2. Auditors,\nwho may examine vouchers and state accounts between parties, and make\nreport thereof to the court; 3. Commissioners of insolvency, appointed\nto distribute insolvent estates; and, 4. County commissioners, who lay\nout highways.\n\nNow, nothing can be clearer than that, in no one of these cases does\nthe officer named exercise \u201cjudicial power.\u201d Indisputably, universally,\nand necessarily, by force of the phrase itself, the term \u201cjudicial\npower\u201d embraces the idea of a _power_ whose decision can be enforced\n_in invitum_; that is, against an unwilling, contesting, resisting\nparty. The sublime power of a court becomes nothingness, and is\nridiculous, if its decrees cannot be executed to the very death of\nthe party against whom they are made. For this purpose, they are\nbacked by all the civil power of the state; and should this prove\ninsufficient, they are backed by all the military power of the state;\nand, even beyond this, by the whole military and naval power of the\nUnited States. Without this, judges are but puppets, or no better than\n\u201cmen in buckram.\u201d \u201cJudicial power\u201d does not consist in a sheriff\u2019s\npresiding over a jury, nor in an auditor\u2019s casting up accounts, nor\nin a commissioner\u2019s ciphering out the dividends of an insolvent\u2019s\nestate, nor in county commissioners\u2019 laying out roads; but it consists\nin entering up a judgment which has the armories at Springfield and\nHarper\u2019s Ferry, which has the standing army and militia of the United\nStates, which has fifty line-of-battle ships, which has the treasury\nof the nation, to back it, and to visit with death one man, a thousand\nmen, or a hundred thousand men, if need be, who shall confront it with\nresistance.\n\nLook, fellow-citizens, at this wretched sophistry. The sheriff\nmust make return of the verdict of the jury to the court of common\npleas,--_which is a_ COURT,--and if either party suggests good grounds\nof dissatisfaction, the whole proceeding is a nullity, and the\ninvestigation must be made again; and again and again, and ten times\nagain, until every act and letter of it become unexceptionable. The\nauditor must make his report to the court that appointed him, and if\nthe court see cause, they set aside both it and him. The acts of the\ncommissioners of insolvency derive all their validity from the consent\nof the parties, or from the judgment of a court, which substitutes the\nforce of law for consent. And no act of the county commissioners, in\ntaking a man\u2019s land, is worth the paper it is written on, until the\nverdict of the jury is returned to the _court_ of common pleas, and\nthere formally accepted and recorded. Nay, every intelligent farmer in\nthe country knows the fact, that though the commissioners have laid out\na new road, or ordered an old one to be shut up, still, if a party,\nfeeling himself aggrieved, demands a jury, the former cannot be worked,\nnor the latter closed, until the _court_ of common pleas shall have\npassed upon the proceeding and ratified it.[23]\n\nIf, however, in all the above cases, the parties in interest _consent_\nto the acts of sheriff, auditor, or commissioner, then those acts\nbecome binding, by virtue of such consent. The party consenting\nis afterwards estopped from questioning them. But they derive no\nauthority from any \u201cjudicial power\u201d vested in the officers performing\nthem. We have a case more exactly in point, and better illustrating\nthe principle, in the fourth section of the ninety-seventh chapter\nof our Revised Statutes, where it is provided, that \u201cin actions upon\npromissory notes and other contracts, where the amount due appears to\nbe undisputed, the debt or damages may be assessed and ascertained by\nthe clerk, either under a general order of the court, or by a special\nreference of the case to him; and the judgment, in either case, shall\nbe entered in the same form as if it had been awarded by the court, on\nan assessment or computation made by themselves.\u201d Yet who will pretend\nthat this act of the clerk, which is performed only where there is no\ndispute between the parties, emanates from any \u201cjudicial power\u201d in that\nofficer?\n\nThe instances cited under the United States constitution have, if\npossible, still less plausibility. The commissioners appointed by the\ncourts can initiate certain proceedings, by holding parties to trial,\n&c., but this function is no more _judicial_ than that of the grand\njury in finding an indictment. It is a preliminary to a judicial act,\nbut not such an act. The commissioners are not even required to be\nsworn, and, in many instances, it is known they are not sworn.\n\nSo of the case of which so much is attempted to be made,--that of the\ncommissioner of patents. Any party feeling himself aggrieved by any of\nhis decisions can appeal directly to the courts of the United States\nfor redress.\n\nCompare all this with analogous instances in the legislative department\nof government. The legislatures of most of the states have created\ncommissions to revise their codes of statute law. Massachusetts has\nhad several such. Our revised statutes are a monument of the labor\nof one of these commissions. But were they legislators? _Was their\nproposed code of any validity until enacted by the Senate and House\nof Representatives?_ Just as much as the acts of sheriff, auditor, or\ncommissioners of the different kinds, were acts of judicial power,\nand no more. Are the selectmen of our towns legislators, because they\ndecide, in the first instance, who are elected as members of our House\nof Representatives? Are our governor and council legislators, in both\nthe state and national governments, because, on an examination of\nvotes transmitted to them by the selectmen, they issue certificates of\nelection to our state senators and to the members of Congress elect? Do\nthey exercise any part of that power which makes \u201ceach house the judge\nof the elections, returns, and qualification of its own members\u201d? Just\nas much, I reply, as sheriff, auditor, commissioner, or clerk, does\nof \u201cjudicial power.\u201d They perform acts preliminary or antecedent to\nlegislation, but no legislative act; just as the above-named classes of\nofficers perform acts preliminary or antecedent to judicial decisions,\nbut never, in any case, the authoritative and compulsory judicial act\nitself.\n\nThe strength, or rather, the weakness, of the commissioner\u2019s argument,\non this point, consists in the obtrusive, projecting, self-shouting\nfallacy of using the exact, technical, constitutional phrase, \u201cjudicial\npower,\u201d as synonymous with the popular expression, \u201c_a judicious\nact_,\u201d or \u201c_the exercise of judgment_.\u201d Officers of all kinds exercise\n\u201cjudicial power,\u201d in this broad and popular sense of the phrase; that\nis, they perform acts requiring good judgment. Umpires, arbitrators,\nand referees perform acts precisely like those of judges, but they\ncannot put the whole physical strength of the government in motion to\nenforce them. So sheriffs decide upon the identity of the party named\nin their precepts; postmasters, to whom they shall deliver letters, and\nwhat postage they shall demand; custom-house officers, upon the nature\nand value of dutiable goods; assessors, in levying taxes; parents and\nteachers, on matters of discipline, &c., &c. In a popular sense, they\nmay all be said to exercise judicial power; but no particle of that\npower which, by the fundamental law of our government, is vested in the\n\u201ccourts.\u201d Their acts are all examinable by the courts. They cannot set\nthe arm of the government in motion to execute their judgments. Indeed,\nthe whole argument of the commissioner on this point is but a play upon\nwords. It is only a trick of verbal legerdemain. The premises he starts\nwith are unknown to the constitution, and the conclusion he comes to is\nabhorrent to humanity.\n\nDoes not every body see that, in order to make the cases parallel, in\norder to obtain any legitimate ground of comparison between them, Sims\nshould have had the same power of appealing from the commissioner\u2019s\ndecision, to a court, which power of appeal belongs _of right_ to\na party who feels aggrieved by the act of sheriff, auditor, or\ncommissioner; and that the certificate should bind him only by his\nvoluntary assent?\n\nBut there is another point in the commissioner\u2019s opinion which is\nworthy to be companion to this. I proceed to consider it.\n\nHe repeats, and keeps repeating, that his decision, dooming Sims to\nall the horrors of bondage, and putting him under the control of a\nman who claims title to his body and his soul, to be carried into a\njurisdiction where such titles are acknowledged, is not \u201cFINAL.\u201d It\nis not _final_, he says, because if Sims be free, he may extort that\nfreedom from the laws of Georgia which has been denied to him by the\nlaws of Massachusetts; that is, if the judgment which the commissioner\nis giving against a free man, in a free state, is a false judgment,\nhe may go to a slave state to obtain redress,--which is ten thousand\ntimes worse than if a jury, in a capital case, should say, We may find\nthis prisoner guilty; for if he be wrongfully hanged, God will make him\namends.\n\nBesides the inhumanity of this position, it contains a fallacy which is\ntwin-brother to the one just considered. The judicial word, \u201c_final_,\u201d\nhas a legal, technical, and certain meaning. In the courts, and in the\nlaw books, it means the last judgment in a judicial proceeding. It\nmeans that judgment from which a party cannot appeal, though he may\never so much desire it; or it means that judgment, after which, however\ndissatisfied the party may be, he cannot have his cause retried or\nreheard by a court, _but is compelled to submit_.\n\n\u201cFinal judgments,\u201d says Blackstone, \u201care such as at once put an\nend to the action.\u201d This is a precise description of the judgment\nrendered by the commissioner against Sims. That victim resisted by\nprayers and tears, by the subduing eloquence of his counsel, and by\ntheir irresistible logic, which the commissioner has never yet begun\nto answer. But the self-constituted judge was inexorable. Though he\nknew that, according to the terms of the Fugitive Law, there was no\nescape from his decision; though he knew that his certificate was to\nprotect the man-hunter from all \u201cmolestation by any process issued by\nany court, judge, magistrate, or other person whomsoever,\u201d yet, like\nPilate, he washes his hands and says, \u201cI am innocent of this man\u2019s\nblood, see ye to it;\u201d for my decision is not \u201cfinal.\u201d And why? Because,\nin another jurisdiction, in another suit, where the plaintiff is to\nbe defendant, and the defendant plaintiff, or perhaps against another\nparty; in a place, too, where all the common-law presumptions in favor\nof freedom are reversed; where the law is different, and the rules of\nevidence are different; and where the respondent himself is reduced to\nthe condition of a chattel and a brute, a decision, at some indefinite\nfuture period, may be had that the man, whom the commissioner now\ndeclares to be a slave, is free, and has always been so. Because of\nthis future and contingent event, because of this almost impossible\npossibility, the commissioner\u2019s decision is not _final_. I deny this.\nThe decision is _final_, because, as Blackstone says, it \u201cat once puts\nan end to the action.\u201d But let us test the question, not only by its\nlegal definition, but by its actual effects. It decides that Sims is\na slave. It decides that he owes service to James Potter. It decides\nthat Potter and his heirs and assigns forever are the lawful owners\nof Sims and the heirs of his bondage forever; and when Sims and his\nposterity shall be scourged, torn, flayed, mutilated, starved, the\nonly consolation which the commissioner has for him and them is, Shall\nthe clay say to the _Potter_ that fashioneth it, What makest thou? It\nnot only decides that Sims is a slave, and that he shall be sent to\nGeorgia, but it sends _familiars_, like those which once disgraced even\nthe purlieus of the Inquisition, to see that the devilish deed is done.\n\nThe whole argument of the commissioner, that this act of his is\nnot _final_, is founded on a quibble,--on the use of the legal\nword \u201cfinal,\u201d as though it were synonymous with the popular word\n_eternal_ or _perpetual_. The slavery of Sims may not be _eternal_ or\n_perpetual_; because, by some miracle of God, or otherwise, he may\nescape. But in a technical and juridical sense the decision of the\ncommissioner is _final_; and he might as well doom a man to be hurled\nfrom the Tarpeian rock, and say that the act is not final, because he\nonly commits the victim to the laws of gravitation, as he has committed\nSims to the laws of Georgia.\n\nIf by any possibility this doctrine, that the decision is not _final_,\ncould be for a moment sustained, then I will submit a case with which\nto compare it.\n\nThe constitution says, \u201cNo state shall pass any law impairing the\nobligation of contracts.\u201d Here we have a constitutional basis,--the\nsame as for the reclamation of fugitive slaves. Some states have\npassed laws impairing the obligation of contracts, as the stop-laws\nof Kentucky, and so forth. Suppose a Massachusetts creditor to claim\nto have a Kentucky debtor, whose contract has been so impaired. Could\nCongress, in order to give efficacy to this constitutional provision,\nauthorize this pretended creditor to go to Kentucky, seize enough of\nthe alleged debtor\u2019s property to satisfy the alleged debt, and carry\nit home, or have it ordered home by a magistrate, under some \u201csummary\u201d\nprocess, which, on its face, excludes the trial by jury; and thereby\ndebar the supposed defendant of all right under that provision of the\nconstitution which gives a jury trial when the value in controversy\nexceeds twenty dollars? And could the Kentucky magistrate, in the\nsupposed case, deny the jury trial on the ground that the proceeding\nbefore him was not \u201cfinal,\u201d because the defendant might follow the\nplaintiff to Massachusetts, and there institute an action of replevin,\ntrespass, or trover, to try, before a jury of the country, the right of\nthe former plaintiff to the property he had seized?\n\nThe commissioner says much in different places, with the apparent hope\nof showing that the proceeding before him was only for what he calls a\n\u201climited and special purpose,\u201d namely, \u201c_removal_.\u201d\n\nI confess myself unable to understand why the certificate of the\ncommissioner is any more restricted to a limited and special purpose\nthan any judicial act, sentence, or execution, of any court whatever.\nThe commissioner declares a _prima facie_ freeman to be a slave. He\ndeclares that James Potter owns Thomas Sims, and the posterity in his\nloins forever; or that Thomas Sims and his posterity forever, owe\nservice to James Potter and his heirs and assigns forever. Does this\n\u201c_forever_\u201d limit the meaning of the certificate, as to time? If so,\nthen a _general_ or _unlimited_ award or execution, against Sims, as\ncontradistinguished from this _limited_ and _special_ one, must extend\nand run into the next world. When our courts decide that one man owes\nanother man money, they award execution against his property, with\ncertain humane exemptions as to clothes, furniture, provisions, school\nbooks, Bible, &c. But when this commissioner decided that Sims owed\nPotter service, he awarded a certificate against the adjudged debtor,\nwhich made no exemption whatever; but included property, clothes,\nbooks, skin, flesh, heart, brain, soul, and all that was in him, or of\nhim, with all appurtenances and appendages, present emblements, and\nfuture increase. Yet, according to the commissioner, the first judgment\nis a common or general one; the last \u201cspecial and limited.\u201d Under\nour old laws, (and under the laws of some states yet,) courts could\nsentence offenders to the barbarous punishment of flogging. But they\nwere and are bound to specify the number of lashes. This is general.\nThe commissioner delivers over a slave to be flogged by his master,\n_ad libitum_, and _in perpetuum_, to be flogged in his own person, and\nto be flogged in the persons of his children, and their posterity, _in\nsecula seculorum_. The defined flogging of thirty-nine, or such other\nnumber of lashes as can be computed, the commissioner calls general or\nindefinite. But the incomputable number of lashes; the vast, unknown,\nalgebraic quantity; the infinite series; that which Newton with all his\nmathematics could not compass, nor Rosse with his telescope see the end\nof,--that is \u201cspecial and limited.\u201d The taking of a limited amount\nof a man\u2019s property, carefully set down in dollars and cents, both in\nthe text and in the margin of the execution, the commissioner calls\na general purpose. But the robbing of a man, not only of all he has\nearned, but of all his capabilities of earning as long as he breathes,\nwith full authority to do the same thing to his posterity to the latest\ngeneration, this is \u201cspecial and limited.\u201d To sentence a man to be\nhanged by the neck till he be dead, though with privilege of priest,\nprayer book, and Bible,--this, too, is general and proper; though in\nMassachusetts it can be done only by a majority of the judges of the\nsupreme court. But to send a man to be worked to death in five years on\na sugar plantation, where his being taught to read the gospel of Jesus\nChrist is a felony,--this is \u201cspecial and limited,\u201d and so may be done\nby any hireling commissioner who will do what Judas did for one third\npart of his silver pieces.\n\nFellow-citizens, I submit to any man, clerical, legal, or lay, who\nis capable of appreciating moral distinctions, whether this whole\ndoctrine, about delivering a man up as a slave, and putting him\nbodily into the hands of the claimant, and thrusting him into slave\njurisdiction, under the pretext that it is done only for _the special\nand limited purpose of removal_, be not atrocious. It is more like a\nforgery than an argument. Assumed learning and logic never practised\na greater imposition upon themselves, nor attempted a greater one\nupon others, than when they fabricated this notion, that adjudging\na man to be a slave, stripping him of his _liberam legem_, that\nis, of all his rights and immunities as a citizen, and delivering\nhim into actual bondage, is \u201cfor a special and limited purpose of\nremoval,\u201d--only to give him a voyage, or a pleasure excursion of a few\nhundred miles,--_out,--but not back_. When the successor of St. Peter,\nclaiming to hold the keys of heaven, and to have death and hell for\nhis ministers, excommunicated whole sects and peoples, and delivered\nthem over to the great soul-hunter, and sent his _familiars_ with them\nto see that the \u201cclaimant\u201d suffered no \u201cmolestation\u201d while conveying\nthem to the bottomless pit, _he_ might as well have said that he did\nit only for a \u201cspecial and limited purpose.\u201d It was not damnation, it\nwas only \u201cremoval.\u201d And do you suppose the devil, could he have got\npossession of those outcast souls, would have cared any more under what\npretence the great pontiff commissioner made the delivery, than does\nthe southern slaveholder, when he gets possession of a man of whom he\ncan make a slave?\n\nThis fallacy about the \u201cspecial and limited purpose of removal\u201d did\nnot originate with Mr. Commissioner Curtis. I exculpate him from that\nguilt. He only adopted it and gave it a \u201cbad eminence\u201d by making it, in\npart, the basis of his decision. But henceforth let the people brand\nit. Let them classify it and denounce it, and detest it, as belonging\nto that impious and blasphemous kind of arguments by which our first\nparents were beguiled, when Satan told them that, though they sinned\nagainst God, they should not die; or by which Mr. Webster cajoled\nand cozened so many honest men, when he assured them, that though\nthey should violate the moral law, by opening all the territories to\nslavery, yet some physical law of geography or the weather would avert\nthe penalties.\n\nIn the absence of all decent materials for an argument, the\ncommissioner resorts to that ten times exploded position, that there is\nan analogy between fugitives from justice and fugitives from service.\nWhere could he find a bandage of prejudice thick enough to blind him\nto the distinction, that the condition of delivering up the former is\nthat he be _charged_ with crime, while the condition of delivering up\nthe latter is that he be _held_ to labor, and that he _owes_ service?\nHow can it be said that a man _owes_ service, until the _fact_ of\nthe _indebtedness_ be proved? Such reasonable suspicion of guilt as\njustifies a grand jury in finding a bill of indictment is sufficient\nin the one case, but such positive proof as would require the court\nto enter up judgment and award execution is absolutely necessary in\nthe other. The government demanding a fugitive from justice seeks\npossession of him for a trial, _before a court and jury_, of the\nquestion of _criminality_; but the claimant of an alleged fugitive from\nservice seeks possession of him to avoid a trial, _before a court and\njury_, of the question of _freedom_. The constitution requires that\nevery person accused of crime shall be tried in the state and district\nwhere the crime shall be charged to have been committed; but it makes\nno such provision in regard to the alleged fugitive from service; and\nthis injunction in the one case, and omission in the other, create the\nirresistible inference, that there is a difference between them, and\nthat the alleged fugitive from service, according to all the analogies\nof the common law, is to be tried where he is found.\n\nBut there is one distinction which is broad enough and luminous\nenough to make a blind man see it. An alleged fugitive from justice\nis not adjudged to be a criminal previous to delivery, nor is he made\na criminal, in the eye of the law, by the act of delivery. But the\nalleged fugitive from service is adjudged a slave, and made a slave by\nthe certificate of the commissioner. The state receiving a fugitive\nfrom justice does not proceed forthwith to punish him. But the receiver\nof an alleged fugitive from service _owns_ him, and may proceed to\ncontrol him, and beat him, and rob him, and starve him, on the very\ninstant that the commissioner puts the certificate into his hands. If\nany one cannot see this distinction, no act of the moral oculist can\ngive him sight.\n\nThe papers inform us that when Sims was landed in Savannah, he was\ntaken to jail and received the \u201c_usual reprimand_,\u201d which, as every\nbody knows, is a flayed and blood-streaming back. By whose certificate\nwas the nine-thonged cat laid on? Had he been a murderer or a pirate,\nwould excoriation have been the first act of welcome on his arrival?\nNo! Murderers and pirates would have had a jury. The law is beneficent\nto them; it saves its terrors for the slave. A man who will not _see_\nsuch a distinction as this, would excite no pity should he be made to\n_feel_ it.\n\nIn treating this topic, the commissioner makes one assertion that\nseems insane. He says that, to authorize the delivery of a fugitive\nfrom justice, in order to his removal, \u201c_it must be proved that he has\ncommitted a crime_.\u201d Such a declaration was never made before, and I\ndo not believe it will be ever made again. You could not find a lawyer\nsouth of Mason and Dixon\u2019s who would venture to say this. Every body\nknows that the supposed criminal needs only _to be charged_ with crime.\nIt is the alleged slave who must be proved to _be held_ to service\nbefore he can be constitutionally surrendered. But as though this was\nnot absurd enough, the commissioner goes on to say, that though the\nalleged fugitive from justice must be proved, in the place where he is\ntaken, \u201cto have committed a crime,\u201d yet, after his removal, he must\nbe proved again to have committed it. How can a man be proved, in any\nlegal way, to have committed a crime, without being confronted with the\nwitnesses against him? Why, after having been so proved, is he put upon\ntrial again?\n\nAs to all the commissioner says in denial of the right of trial by\njury, I shall make but one or two remarks. I have argued that question\nelsewhere; and, until I see some answer to that argument, I have no\noccasion for repetition or corroboration of it. After using the word\n\u201c_person_\u201d some twenty times, to signify the President of the United\nStates, electors, senators, representatives, United States officers,\nIndians, Africans, &c., the constitution declares that \u201cno _person_\nshall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process\nof law;\u201d--this \u201cdue process of law\u201d meaning trial by jury. This is one\nfact. Adam Gibson, Henry Long, Thomas Sims, and many others, some of\nthem now acknowledged on all hands to have been free, have been sent\ninto slavery without this trial. This is another fact. Now put these\ntwo facts together. No man shall be deprived of liberty or property,\nexcept by the jury trial. These men have been deprived of liberty and\nproperty without the jury trial. These are the two ends. Now fill up\nthe space between them with what you please, and call it argument, law,\ngospel, or what you will, every body must see that it is nothing, and\ncan be nothing but Mephistophiles\u2019 jugglery. I dismiss this point with\na single proposition: In Massachusetts, we know no legal distinction\nfounded on color. Through all the gradations, from the person who\nhas the preternatural whiteness of an Albino to one whom you can see\nin the darkest midnight, because he is so solid black,--all, _all_,\nunder our constitution and laws, are alike freemen, or alike slaves.\nNotwithstanding the commissioner\u2019s decision makes us all slaves, yet I\nmaintain that, in the eye of the law, we are all free. How then can any\none of us freemen be robbed of liberty and property, and turned into a\nslave, but by freeman\u2019s proof,--that is, trial by jury? I acknowledge\nthat after we have been proved to be slaves by freeman\u2019s proof, then\nall the unutterable consequences of slavery follow, of course; just as\nwhen a man has been proved to be a murderer, the consequences of murder\nfollow. But UNTIL, mark this, =UNTIL= a man has been proved to be a\nslave by freeman\u2019s proof, he remains legally free. And a magistrate\nwho takes jurisdiction of a proceeding by which a man may be deprived\nof liberty or property, without freeman\u2019s proof, prejudges his victim,\nwhen he allows the first witness to be called, or the first paper to\nbe read; and he might just as well do it, in a case of \u201clife,\u201d as in a\ncase of \u201cliberty and property.\u201d\n\nThe next position of the commissioner which I shall notice relates to\nthe right of Congress to make use of state courts to execute United\nStates laws.\n\nNow we have the express authority of the supreme court of the United\nStates for saying that \u201cCongress cannot vest any portion of the\njudicial power of the United States, except in courts ordained and\nestablished by itself.\u201d--_Martin_ vs. _Hunter\u2019s Lessee_, 1 Wheaton,\n330. \u201cThe whole judicial power of the United States should be, at all\ntimes, vested in some courts created under its authority.\u201d--_Ib._\n331. \u201cThe jurisdiction over such cases, [cases arising under the\nconstitution, laws, and treaties of the United States,] could not exist\nin the state courts previous to the adoption of the constitution,\nand it could not afterwards be directly conferred on them; for the\nconstitution expressly requires the judicial power to be vested in\ncourts ordained and established by the United States.\u201d--_Ib._ 335.\nBut the commissioner refers to a passage in Prigg\u2019s case, in which it\nis said that \u201cwhile a difference of opinion exists ... whether state\nmagistrates are bound to act under it, [a law of Congress,] none is\nentertained by the court, that state magistrates may, if they choose,\nexercise the authority, unless prohibited by state legislation.\u201d\n\nWaiving all exceptions to this doctrine, the utmost that can be made\nof it is this: that state magistrates may execute a law of Congress,\nunless forbidden by a law of their state; but when so forbidden, they\ncannot; and Congress can neither compel them to do so, nor annul a\nprohibitory law of the state, by giving validity to the act of the\nmagistrate, performed in violation of the state law. Now mark the _non\nsequitur_ of the commissioner\u2019s logic. See how his premises belong to\none subject, and his conclusion to another. Because a _Massachusetts_\nmagistrate may execute a law of Congress, unless the Massachusetts\nlegislature forbid him, but if so forbidden he can no longer do it,\ntherefore, when the Massachusetts legislature has so forbidden him,\nCongress may send the magistrates of Georgia, or of any other state,\ninto Massachusetts, to do what our own state had forbidden our own\nmagistrates to do. I say \u201c_send the magistrates of Georgia here_;\u201d\nbecause Congress may just as well, and even better for us, authorize\nthe magistrates of any state in the Union to come here, set up courts,\nand pass sentences which shall convey our citizens into bondage, as to\nstay at home and make records, which, when brought here, shall have the\nsame effect. This, then, is the law-logic of the commissioner: Because\na Massachusetts magistrate may aid in reclaiming an alleged fugitive\non Massachusetts ground, unless forbidden by his state, yet, if so\nforbidden, then the legislatures of fifteen slave states may send their\nmagistrates, or the acts of their magistrates here, to do the same\nthing. The state might prevent its own magistrates from aiding in this\nnefarious work, but this would be of no avail, for any one, or all, of\nfifteen sets of slave state magistrates may come and do the forbidden\nact.\n\nPierpont Edwards once said of a clergyman, that if his text had a\ncontagious disease, the sermon would not catch it; and a blind man,\nbeing asked to describe his conception of color, compared it to a clap\nof thunder. But all their ideas were coherent and homogeneous compared\nwith those premises and conclusions of the commissioner, by which the\nState Rights\u2019 doctrine is expounded to mean, the right of one _state_\nto send its magistrates into another state, to do what the latter has\n_lawfully_ prohibited its own magistrates from doing. South Carolina\nnever claimed so much as this.\n\nUnder the first head, where it had been urged by counsel, that a\nfreeman might have no opportunity to prove his freedom in the state\nfrom which he was alleged to have fled, because the claimant was under\nno obligation to carry him to that state, but might send him to the\nCuban or Brazilian market, the commissioner shuts his eyes to these\nvery probable consequences, and refuses to consider them; but under\nthe fifth head, where an argument in favor of the slaveholder could be\nderived from consequences, he not only argues elaborately from them,\nbut bases his judgment upon them.\n\nThere are two remarks thrown out in the course of the commissioner\u2019s\nopinion so shocking to every feeling of humanity, that any one, in\ncommenting upon them, may well be excused for passing from the language\nof argument to that of emotion.\n\nIf there be any one right known to the common law more important\nand sacred than all others, it is the right of confronting and\ncross-examining the witnesses who are brought to testify against us.\nWithout this right, there is no fraud that cannot be practised upon the\nmost honest man, and no guilt that cannot be proved against the most\ninnocent one. Doubtless this right of cross-examination is sometimes\nabused; but there are few spectacles more exciting or more gratifying\nthan to see the demons of falsehood driven out, one after another, from\na perjured villain, until the truth, at last, is wrenched from his\nheart, notwithstanding the double boltings and barrings with which he\nhad locked it there. The fear of this cross-examination \u201ccasting its\nshadows before,\u201d has prevented thousands and tens of thousands from\nswearing falsely. Next to honesty, this fear is the greatest protection\nto property, liberty, and life.\n\nNow the testimony which doomed Sims to slavery, and which may doom any\nof us with our wives and children to slavery, when men grow, not more\nwicked, but only a little more bold in their wickedness than they are\nnow, was wholly _ex parte_ testimony; taken, not merely behind the\nvictim\u2019s back, but a thousand miles behind his back; of which he had\nno knowledge, and, unless he were omniscient, like God, could have no\nknowledge. And when the counsel of Sims urged upon the commissioner the\nenormity of this outrage against all principle, what was his reply?\nIt was this, and it makes a man\u2019s blood run cold to read it: Sims\u2019s\nabsence from Georgia, \u201cso that he could not be served with notice, if\nhe was entitled to it, was in his own wrong, and he cannot now complain\nthat he had no opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.\u201d\n\nI appeal to all history to prove, that no judge who ever sat upon a\nbench where the common law was recognized and administered, however\ncorrupt he may have been, ever advanced a more atrocious doctrine. Why,\ngentlemen, if a debtor absconds for the very purpose of defrauding his\ncreditors, he must have notice before he can be proceeded against for\nthe recovery of a debt. If he flees from the state, lurks and hides\nhimself, he must have the best notice the court can contrive to give\nhim. If the plaintiff recovers and takes out execution, he must file\na bond conditioned to make restoration; and years afterwards, if the\ndefendant shall come back and show cause; he shall be entitled to a\nreview to annul the whole proceedings against him. Ay, when a criminal,\na robber, a murderer, an incendiary, is brought to trial, even he must\nbe \u201cconfronted with the witnesses against him, have compulsory process\nfor obtaining witnesses in his favor, and the assistance of counsel in\nhis defence.\u201d And yet the commissioner _makes proof out of nothing_,\nthat Sims escaped from slavery, and then, because of this nothing-made\nproof, he inculpates him with being absent \u201cin his own wrong.\u201d\n\nThe other point referred to arose from certain testimony, (if it can be\ncalled testimony,) that the mother of Sims begged the witness, \u201cwhether\nher son was in a free state or in a slave state, for God\u2019s sake, to\nbring him back again.\u201d \u201cThis,\u201d says the commissioner, \u201ccertainly\ndisarms the case of any unpleasant features\u201d! Why, even the kine of\nthe barn-yard, when the butcher cuts the throat of her young, will\nweep and low, and bellow, for days and days, and say, as well as in\nher inarticulate moanings she can say, \u201cFor God\u2019s sake, let it be\nbrought back again;\u201d though the only consequence of its return would\nbe to have its throat cut by the butcher again. And are we to expect\nthat the brutalized, chattelized \u201ccattle\u201d of the south will have less\nof that natural yearning and longing of the soul, at the loss of their\noffspring, than the animals of the farmer\u2019s yard? Can we suppose\nthat God has not planted the instinct of a mother\u2019s love too deep to\nbe destroyed but by the destruction of the being herself in whom it\nwas planted? No! debase the mother as you will, by ignorance, vice,\nsuperstition, lust, concubinage, incest, and this wealth of affection\nwill still glow at the bottom of her heart, \u201crich as the oozy bottom\nof the deep in sunken wrack and sumless treasures.\u201d And because this\nmother\u2019s love had not been all extinguished, the commissioner says\nthat his sending a human being into the abyss of bondage, on evidence\nthat an intelligent barbarian would reject, \u201ccertainly disarms the\ncase of any unpleasant features.\u201d But I shall not expostulate with the\ncommissioner. A man must have a heart before he can feel, as he must\nhave eyes before he can see.\n\n    \u201cO, who can paint a sunbeam to the blind,\n    Or make him feel a shadow with his mind?\u201d\n\nFellow-citizens, I might occupy your attention much longer upon this\nunprecedented opinion of the commissioner; but there are two or three\nother topics to which I wish to call your attention, and I therefore\nforbear. In saying what I have said, I disclaim all personal ill will\nor discourtesy towards that magistrate. Even should I appear not to\nhave succeeded in suppressing my own feelings, I certainly cannot wound\nhis more than he has wounded mine, and those I believe of nine tenths\nof all who have ever read his opinion;--not by a thousand fold as much\nas he has wounded the law, whose servant he is, or the fair fame of\nMassachusetts, of which he is a citizen; not so much as his decision\nwill wound the hearts of an intelligent posterity, who shall look back\nupon it as a partisan and an ignoble act, not to be remembered without\na sigh.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIf the legal relations of slavery did not sustain the moral ones,\nas the root sustains the branches and nourishes the fruit, those\nmoral relations would seem to demand all our attention. I know but\ncomparatively little, and no man living at the north can know but\ncomparatively little, of the various and ever-repeated wickednesses\nof this institution. It has been my lot, however, to live for about\nhalf the time, during the last four years, in the midst of a milder\nform of slavery. And besides this, I was once engaged for about six\nweeks in the trial of causes growing directly out of slavery; and\nthat experience gave me some insight into its dreadful mysteries. For\na moment, the wind blew the smoke and flame aside, and I looked into\nits hell. I saw, then, as I had never seen before, what a vital and\ninextinguishable interest every human being has in this subject;--not\nthe slaves alone, but the free men; not voters only, but all who can be\naffected by votes; not men only, but especially women.\n\nFor this reason, I am glad to see so many ladies in this audience. It\nbecomes them to be here. If any mortal should cultivate an abhorrence\nof slavery, the female sex should do it. Whatever any one may hold\nto be the social relation between free women and slave women, yet\nbefore God and Christ, and all the holy angels, they belong to the\nsame sisterhood of the human race. They are your sisters. And what is\nthe condition of these your sisters, in regard to everything that a\nvirtuous and noble woman holds most sacred and dear?\n\nLadies, there are now in this land of pretended freedom and pretended\ngospel a million and a half of women who have no practical knowledge of\nwhat a woman\u2019s higher life should be, or what a woman\u2019s most precious\nrights are. Since the Declaration of Independence, the number of slaves\nin this country has increased from less than five hundred thousand to\nmore than three millions; and before the close of this century, their\ndescendants will increase to more than thrice three millions. And yet,\nneither as to the living nor as to the dead, has there ever been a\nlawful marriage among them all. There has never been a man slave who\ncould say, \u201cThis is my wife, heart of my heart, and life of my life,\nand no mortal power shall pluck her from my side.\u201d There has never been\na woman slave who could say, \u201cThis is my lawful, wedded husband, whom I\npromise to love and cherish, and to whom I vow inviolable constancy.\u201d\n\u201cFor this cause,\u201d says Christ, \u201cshall a man leave father and mother,\nand shall cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh.\u201d But\nthe \u201ctwain\u201d of slaves are never one. And even when any sham ceremony\nis observed, to distinguish this holy relation of husband and wife\nfrom the cohabitations of beasts, and he who officiates comes to those\nother words of Christ, \u201cWhat, therefore, God has joined together, let\nnot man put asunder,\u201d he stops; for he knows, and they all know,\nthat a few dollars, at any time, will bring bereavement upon both,--a\ndouble bereavement, he a widower and she a widow, both still surviving.\nTheir life, at best, is but a life of concubinage;--not even that\nconcubinage, which, though not founded upon a lawful contract, has\nstill something like conjugal fidelity in it, and therefore a semblance\nof virtue; but a various and vagrant concubinage, traversing the circle\nof overseer, master, master\u2019s guests, and master\u2019s sons. The fate of\nthe children born to the slave mother you all know. Those objects upon\nwhich all maternal affections meet and glow as in a focus, are torn\nfrom her bosom, like lambs from the flock when the shambles are empty.\n\nAnd as to those females who are young, sprightly, and handsome:--\n\nCharge me not with indelicacy in touching upon this theme. _Honi soit\nqui mal y pense._ I speak not to fastidious ears, but to the pure in\nheart, to whom all things are pure. I speak of eternal verities, before\nwhose massive force the heart trembles and bows itself, as reeds before\nthe tempest. It is the grossest and most shameless of all indelicacies\nto patronize and multiply vice, through pusillanimity in exposing it,--\n\nAs to those females, I say, who are young, sprightly, and handsome,\nwhom God has damned with beauty of form and beauty of face, because\nthey only attract the gloating eye of passion, who can describe the\nloathsomeness of their life? They are ripened for the New Orleans, or\nfor some other market, whence southern harems are supplied; as, under\nthe Mahometan religion, white Caucasian beauties are sent to the slave\nmarts of the darker-skinned Turk.\n\nIn that company of seventy-six persons who attempted, in 1848, to\nescape from the District of Columbia in the schooner Pearl, and whose\nofficers I assisted in defending, there were several young and healthy\ngirls who had those peculiar attractions of form, of feature, and\nof complexion, which southern connoisseurs in sensualism so highly\nprize. Elizabeth Russell was one of them. She fell immediately into\nthe slave-traders\u2019 fangs, and was doomed for the New Orleans market.\nThe hearts of those who saw her and foresaw her fate were touched with\npity. They offered eighteen hundred dollars to redeem her, and some\nthere were who offered to give, who would not have had much left after\nthe gift. But the fiend of a slave trader was inexorable. He knew how\nhe could transmute her charms into gold through the fires of sin. He\ndemanded twenty-one hundred dollars, (though for menial services she\nwould not have been worth more than four or five,) and would take\nnothing less. She was despatched to New Orleans, but when about half\nway there, God had mercy upon her and smote her with death. Perhaps,\nforeseeing her fate, she practised what, under such circumstances, we\nmight call the virtue of suicide. There were two girls named Edmundson\nin the same company. When about to be sent to the same market, an older\nsister went to the shambles to plead with the wretch who owned them,\nfor the love of God, to spare his victims. He bantered her, telling her\nwhat fine dresses and fine furniture they would have. \u201cYes,\u201d said she,\n\u201cthat may do well in this life, but what will become of them in the\nnext?\u201d They, too, were sent to New Orleans, but they were afterwards\nredeemed at an enormous ransom, and brought back. There was one girl,\nwho, after her recapture in the Pearl, was sold six times in seven\nweeks, in Maryland and Virginia, for her beauty\u2019s sake. But she proved\nheroically and sublimely intractable. Like Rebecca, the Jewess, she\nwould have flung herself from the loftiest battlement, rather than\nyield her person to a villain. Notwithstanding her masters\u2019 pretence\nthat they had bought her with their money, and owned her soul, yet\nshe had wealth, which, though all the earth were \u201cone entire and\nperfect chrysolite,\u201d it could not buy. It was not difficult, therefore,\nto purchase her, and she was redeemed and came to New York; and I\nhave been informed in the most authentic manner from the lady of the\nvery respectable family of which she became an inmate, that, on an\nexamination of her person, after the healing-time of the journey had\npassed, her body was found scarred and waled with whip marks, which the\nvillains inflicted upon her because she would not come to their bed.\n\nNow, suppose a sister or daughter of yours, of this heroic soul\nand spotless purity, should find herself on the way to New\nOrleans;--suppose, by almost superhuman power and adroitness, she\nshould escape, and should thread her solitary and darksome path, for\nhundreds of miles, towards the north star; should lie down in caverns,\nwith poisonous reptiles by day, and pursue her lonely journey by night,\nfinding the beasts of the forests to be less terrible than man; should\nswim rivers, and keep off famine by roots and insects, until at last,\nthanks be to God, she sets her mangled and bleeding feet upon the soil\nof freedom. Perhaps some echo of the fame of the Pilgrim mothers has\nreached her ears. She has heard of Boston and its noble women of old,\nand she hies hither as to a city of refuge,--as to a sanctuary where\nvirtue has an altar, and where she can lay down her hunted and weary\nbody, and be at rest. Fallacious hope! The lecher pursues his prey, and\nhe is here. He goes to some Glossin lawyer who sues out a warrant; and\nto some Jack Ketch who serves it. The victim is seized at midnight,\nunder some lying charge, and she is carried before a commissioner,\nwhose conduct, were he a _quasi_ judge, as he pretends to be, would be\nenough to make every hair of the judicial ermine forever detestable.\nHere a process is gone through which she does not understand, and\nsome papers are read of which she never heard, and then a judgment is\npronounced that her \u201clabor\u201d is \u201cdue\u201d to her pursuer, (and such labor!)\nthat she \u201cowes service\u201d to him, (and such service!) and then the\ncommissioner delivers her into his arms, and pockets a fee which common\npimps would be ashamed to work for.\n\nAnd, my friends, the keenest pang in the grief of all this is, that\nthere is no fiction or romance about it. A commissioner who could bring\nhimself down to send a _man_ to a Georgia cotton-field under this law,\nthe first time trying, could send a virtuous and spotless woman into\nenforced harlotry the second time; and the prince of darkness only\nknows what he could not set him to do afterwards. The clergymen who\ncould defend the enslavers of Sims because he \u201cowed\u201d the \u201cservice\u201d\nof one sex, could defend the enslavers of a woman because she \u201cowed\u201d\nthe \u201cservice\u201d of the other sex;--the clergymen of the rich parishes I\nmean;--for it happens, with the constancy of a law of nature, that it\nis only the clergymen of the rich parishes who do this. Do they not\nknow how to serve and reverence their Lord and Master,--that is, their\nLandlord and Paymaster!\n\nBut, fellow-citizens, as our feelings are stimulated to the keenest\nsensibility, in looking at the infinite of wrong which slavery commits;\nas we see the millions and millions of human beings dimly emerging into\nview, and crowding down the vista of futurity to blast our eyes with\nthe vision of their woe, a potent voice rings in our ears, exclaiming,\n\u201c_Conquer your prejudices_,\u201d \u201cCONQUER YOUR PREJUDICES.\u201d And this\nexecrable counsel is uttered in reference to the infinite crime and\ndisgrace of sending into slavery, without a trial, those who are free\nunder our laws,--the men to stripes and death, and the women to the\nbody\u2019s shame and the soul\u2019s perdition. Fouler, baser, more ungodly\ncounsel was never uttered, since it was said to our first parents in\nthe garden of Eden, \u201cOn the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt not\nsurely die.\u201d\n\nAnd what is it that this long-honored eulogist of liberty, but now its\ngreat apostate, blasphemes with the name of \u201c_prejudice_\u201d? If there be\none sentiment more deeply rooted in the public heart of Massachusetts\nthan any other, more intertwined and grown together with all the\nfibres of its being, it is the sentiment of liberty. We have drunk it\nin with our mothers\u2019 milk; we have imbibed it from all the lessons of\nthe school-room and the teachings of the sanctuary; we have inspired\nit with the atmosphere we breathe, and our organs have been attuned\nto it from our birth, by the anthems of the mountain\u2019s wind and the\nocean\u2019s roar. It was from the love of liberty that our earlier fathers\nplucked themselves up by the roots from that natal soil into which they\nhad been fastening for centuries. For this they wandered abroad upon\nthe ocean, deeming its ingulfing surges to be more tolerable than a\ntyrant\u2019s power. For this they transplanted themselves to this land, at\nthat time more distant and more formidable to them than any part of the\nhabitable globe could now be to us. For this they performed the double\ntask of enduring all privations and dangers, and at the same time of\nlaying the foundations of all our free and glorious institutions; and\nas the sires were stricken down by toil and death, the sons took up the\nwork and bore it on, generation after generation.\n\nFor this noble sentiment of liberty our later fathers encountered\nthe perils and deaths of a seven years\u2019 war, and amid poverty and\ndestitution, amid hunger and cold and nakedness, without any of the\nprotections and defences of battle which the wealth of their foe could\ncommand, they bared their noble breasts to the shock of the mailed\nlegions of the British crown. And when the struggle was ended and the\ntriumph won, they achieved labors of peace not less magnanimous and\nwonderful than their labors of war.\n\nThey were the pattern men of the world;--not aggressive, not\nsubmissive; not hostile, not servile; doing right, demanding right;\nthey were the men who would never wield the oppressor\u2019s rod, and would\ngo mad at the touch of his heel.\n\nNow, there is not one of all those glorious deeds, from the embarkation\nat Delfthaven to the signing of the peace of 1783, or the inauguration\nof the federal government in 1789, which was not begotten by the love\nof liberty, or would have been performed without its creative energy.\nAnd yet, the arch-apostate, standing in the city of Boston, the home of\nold Samuel Adams and John Hancock, within a stone\u2019s throw of the spot\nwhere Benjamin Franklin was born, in sight of Bunker Hill, and with\nLexington and Concord, as it were, just hiding themselves behind the\nhills for shame, calls all this a \u201cprejudice,\u201d and commands us to cast\nit from us as an unclean thing. Was it not enough to make the stones in\nthe streets, and every block in that eternal shaft which marks the spot\nwhere Warren fell, cry out \u201cwith most miraculous organ\u201d to rebuke him?\n\nWe have another, and it is a kindred \u201cprejudice.\u201d We have a \u201cprejudice\u201d\nof sixty years\u2019 standing in favor of the principle of the ordinance of\n1787. That ordinance has been cherished in our memories, it has been\ntaught to our children, and we have displayed it before the world both\nas the pledge and the promise of our devotion to liberty. Five states,\nnow numbering five millions of men, were the battalions whom that\nordinance wheeled from the ranks of Belial to the Lord\u2019s side. Hundreds\nof times have the Whig party and the Democratic party resolved that the\nprinciple of that ordinance should be maintained inviolate. Mr. Webster\nclaimed the application of it to the new territories, as his thunder,\nand swaggered as he rattled it. Now he calls the great achievement of\nThomas Jefferson and Nathan Dane a \u201c_prejudice_,\u201d and dishonors their\ngraves by his scoffs. He abandons the vast regions of Utah and New\nMexico to the slaveholder; he gives more than fifty thousand square\nmiles of free territory to Texas; he gives ten millions of dollars in\nmoney, (more than, with all our devotion and self-sacrifice, we have\nbeen able to appropriate to public education in Massachusetts for the\nlast ten years;) and worse than this, he gives permission that she may\ncarve out of her territory a slave state _additional_ to what had been\nunconstitutionally contracted for when she came into the Union.\n\nAnd for what does he flout us, by stigmatizing all these sacred\nconvictions and sentiments and instincts as \u201c_prejudices_\u201d? Only to\nfeed the famine of his ambition. He began to see, what every body else\nhas so long seen, that his vices were bringing upon him the retribution\nof premature old age and decrepitude; and that, unless he could enter\nthe White House the next term, he must wait, at least until the great\nJulian period should bring the world round again. He parleyed with\nsouthern tempters, and fell.\n\nNor did he outrage our feelings only. He sacrificed our pecuniary\ninterests, our very means of subsistence. Massachusetts would be\nprospering under an improved system of protection for our domestic\nindustry to-day, but for Mr. Webster\u2019s apostasy, which stripped us of\nall our power and of all our unity, and inflamed the spirit of southern\naggrandizement to demand every thing and yield nothing. Could the issue\nbe now formed, and the case tried, whether Daniel Webster\u2019s course in\n1850 did not deprive the working-men of the country of a tariff for\nthe protection of their labor, not an intelligent and impartial jury\ncould be found that would not bring him in guilty. This result every\nunbiased man at Washington saw, last summer; while he was cajoling\nthe men of the north with the delusion that, if they would surrender\nliberty, they should have their reward in a tariff. I speak of this\nwith confidence, because there are hundreds of my constituents and\nacquaintances who will bear me witness that, in personal interviews,\nand by correspondence, they were warned, that if they followed Mr.\nWebster in his recreancy to principles, he would leave them without\nrelief in the matter of property.\n\nFellow-citizens, I will trespass upon your attention but for a moment\nlonger. I wish to advance one idea for the consideration of all sober,\nmoral, and religious men; and when this idea is duly considered, I\ntrust to its working a revolution in public sentiment. In selecting men\nto be our political leaders, we have sometimes committed the gravest\nmoral error. We have assumed the falsity of a distinction between a\nman\u2019s public and his private life. We have supposed that the same\nindividual might be a bad man and a good citizen; might be a patriot\nand an inebriate, a faithful officer and a debauchee, at the same\ntime; might serve his country during \u201coffice hours,\u201d and the powers of\ndarkness the rest of the twenty-four. But I say, as of old, no man can\nserve God and mammon.\n\nWe have been too prone to judge of men by their professions and by\ntheir connections. We seem to have forgotten that the tree is to be\nknown by its fruit, and a man by his life. If we are to take the\nPharisee\u2019s rule, and determine a man\u2019s piety by his creed, and by the\nnumber and length of his prayers, then piety will be the cheapest thing\nin the market, and as worthless as it is cheap.\n\nIn choosing teachers to be the guides and exemplars of our children, we\ndemand high moral worth; and we would as soon thrust our youth into the\ncentre of pestilence, as amid the contagion of vicious and profligate\nmen.\n\nIn selecting our religious guides, we feel almost justified in being\ncaptiously and morbidly critical; we hardly admit that we can be\nstrict to a fault; and the man who fails to carry personal purity\nand exemplariness into the pastoral life, is driven from it with\nindignation and contempt.\n\nI admit too, rejoicingly, that, in Massachusetts, this preventive and\npraiseworthy discipline has been more extensively applied to political\nmen than in any other state in the Union. Our highest state offices\nhave been filled for years, saving very rare exceptions, with men of\ndistinguished probity and a spotless life. And why, in this department,\nshould we _ever_ grant dispensations and absolutions; or, like the old\npopes, sell indulgences to sin?\n\nNow, let this doctrine be applied; for I hold it to be no unwarrantable\ninvasion of private character to apply these principles to public men.\nWhen public men openly and notoriously practise vice, they make the\nvice public, and bring it within public jurisdiction. If it is public\nfor example, it is public for criticism; and, under such circumstances,\nthe moral and religious guides of the community are as solemnly bound\n\u201ctruly to find, and due presentment make,\u201d of these offences, as the\ngrand jury is in the case of crimes against the laws of the land. I\nsay, therefore, let us apply this doctrine.\n\nHow long have all good citizens in Massachusetts labored in the\nglorious cause of temperance! They have devoted time, expended talent,\nlavished money, incurred obloquy; but, as their reward, they have\nplucked the guilty from perdition; rescued the young, just losing their\nbalance over the precipice of ruin; saved the widow and the fatherless\nfrom unutterable woe, and driven demons of discord from domestic\nEdens. Now why, after all our toils and sacrifices to uphold and carry\nforward the cause of temperance, and to make its name as honorable as\nit is blessed; why should we demolish all our work by elevating a man\nto a high political station, or by upholding him when in it, who, in\nthe face of the nation and of the world, will become so drunken that\nhe cannot articulate his mother tongue? Is this an example you desire\nto set before the ingenuous and aspiring youth of the land; ay, before\nyour own children?\n\nWe have had men in the presidential chair not without faults and\nblemishes of character; but hitherto we may proudly say, that we never\nhave had one there who drowned his reason in his cups. God grant that\nwe never may. Think of this magnificent ship of state freighted with\ntwenty-three millions of souls, and laden to the scuppers with the\nwealth of the world\u2019s hopes, with a pilot at the helm--_drunk_!\n\nWe are an industrious and a frugal people. The aptitude is born with\nus. A true Massachusetts boy seems to take to ingenious labor and to\nlabor-saving contrivances from his birth,--like a duck almost impatient\nto be hatched, that it may get into the water. We prize and honor the\nhome-bred virtues of diligence and thrift; for they bestow upon us\nall our comforts, the means of educating our children, and leave us\na magnificent surplus for godlike charities to be scattered over the\nworld.\n\nDr. Franklin has stamped a family likeness upon us all. His economical\nwisdom is domesticated among us. Take a sound and pure specimen of a\nMassachusetts farmer or mechanic, and analyze him, and you will find\nthat, of his whole composition, from six to ten ounces in the pound is\nmade up of Dr. Franklin. Now, why should we root out this luxuriant,\nfruit-bearing virtue? Why welcome and court and feed the prodigalities\nand sensualities of the old world, to corrupt the pristine virtues\nof the new? Can he be a republican after the severe simplicity and\ngrandeur of the old Roman type; can he be an exemplary citizen, who\nmust have his thirty, forty, or even fifty thousand dollars a year,\nto squander upon what I must not call, \u201cto ears polite,\u201d his vices\nand passions, but, more genteelly, \u201chis tastes and feelings,\u201d while\nmillions of honest laborers thank God if by incessant toil they can\nearn their daily bread for their families, and the bread of knowledge\nfor their children? Can they be good citizens, or, at least, are they\nnot grievously deluded, who will give such purses to such a man for\nbeing the advocate and agent of their special interests, while there\nare hundreds of suffering men and women, and more suffering children,\nat their own doors? Do you want your children to grow up inflamed\nby such examples of excess and wantonness? I know that all this is\ndefended on the ground that something must be done for a great man\u2019s\nfamily. _Ay, that family!_ The progeny and costliness of the vices,\nwhat Californias shall be able to support? I know, too, that it is also\nsaid we must have great talents in the public councils, at whatever\nprice. Well, if this be your philosophy, don\u2019t do the work by halves,\nbut import Lucifer at once!\n\nNow, fellow-citizens, you know that all the men who are guilty of these\ngreat derelictions from civil and social duty are the men who uphold\nthe Fugitive Slave law.\n\nI might touch upon more holy relations in life; upon virtues without\nwhich there is no home and no domestic sanctuary; without which there\nmay be children, but the sacred institution of the family is gone. But\nI forbear. I only desire to awaken your attention to the great duty of\nextending the domain of conscience over politics; of holding public\nmen answerable for those vices which it is a great misnomer to call\nprivate when they are committed in the face of the world. \u201cThe pulpit\nis false to its trust\u201d if it does not follow and rebuke them, under\nwhatever robes of official dignity they may hold their revels.\n\nThree great stages of development belong to the world. First, there\nwas the period of physical development, when the tallest man was\ncrowned king, when the strongest muscles enacted the laws, when brute\nforce was \u201cHis Royal Majesty,\u201d and claimed and received the homage\nof mankind. That age has passed; and how contemptible does all its\ngreatness now appear! Then came the age when the mind towered above\nthe body, when a nation\u2019s power no longer consisted in the millions of\nits men, but in the treasuries of its knowledge; when the intellect\ntook up the vastest concentrations of animal strength, which seemed\nomnipotent before, lifted them off their fulcrum, and they became\nlike a feather, in the breath of its power. That age is the present.\nThe moral age is yet to be ushered in. In this age, the intellectual\nforces shall still retain all their dominion and supremacy over the\nphysical world, but the moral shall preside over the intellectual,\nand move them as God moves the stars, bringing them out of chaos, and\nwheeling them in circuits of unimaginable grandeur, and for purposes\nof beneficence yet inconceivable. In that day, the lawgivers of the\nland shall be no longer \u201ccompromisers\u201d between duty and mammon, and\nthe judges shall judge in righteousness. In that day, the merchant,\nfor the lucre of trade, shall not pay tribute in human beings, and\nsend his flesh-tax across the free waters. In that day, the gospel of\nhuman brotherhood, of doing as we would be done by, and of loving our\nneighbors as ourselves, shall no longer be doled out to us by priests\nof the broad phylactery sort, in hom\u0153opathic doses, reduced to the five\nhundredth dilution. But in that glorious day, the men who sit in the\nAreopagus of the nation, clothed with the ermine of the law, shall\nbe, as the heathen of old figured the emblem of Justice, blind in the\noutward eye; and all they know of color shall be to give no color to\nthe law. In that day the successors of St. Paul shall preach what he\npreached, when standing \u201cin the midst of Mars Hill,\u201d--a God of equity,\nof righteousness, of justice, of benevolence; the God who made \u201cof one\nblood all nations of men,\u201d who, alas! to so many in our day is \u201cthe\nUNKNOWN GOD.\u201d\n\nIn that day, when a whole people are aroused to ponder, with unwonted\nintensity, upon the great principles for which Sidney and Vane bled;\nfor which Hampden smote the tyrant of his day; for which the heroes\nof the revolution pledged fortune, life, and sacred honor; no voice\nshall strive to seduce them from their sacred work by its Belial cry,\n\u201cCONQUER YOUR PREJUDICES!\u201d\n\nFellow-citizens, if you wish to co\u00f6perate in bringing on this glorious\nera, your first step is to vote for that noble man who ransomed his own\nslaves,--JOHN G. PALFREY.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[21] It is substantially conceded by the supreme court of\nMassachusetts, in delivering their opinion on the application of Sims\nfor a writ of _habeas corpus_, that the Fugitive Slave law stands upon\nprecedent alone, and is disowned by principle. Chief Justice Shaw\nsays,--\n\n\u201cAt the same time it may be proper to say, that if this argument,\ndrawn from the constitution of the United States, were now first\napplied to the law of 1793, deriving no sanction from contemporaneous\nconstruction, judicial precedent, and the acquiescence of the general\nand state governments, the argument from the limitation of judicial\npower would be entitled to very grave consideration.\u201d\n\nI submit that the precedents, on this subject, both legislative and\njudicial, are substantially divested of all their force, by the fewness\nof the cases that have ever arisen under the law, by the general\nobsoleteness into which it fell, and, more than all, by that uniform\nindifference and neglect, and I may add inhumanity, with which colored\npeople and the rights of colored people, have been almost universally\nregarded in the different states of the Union.\n\n[22] Mr. George T. Curtis.\n\n[23] I object to Mr. Curtis\u2019s calling the county commissioners \u201c_the\ncourt_ of county commissioners.\u201d They are nowhere so called in the act\ncreating them, or in the act defining their duties. On the contrary,\nthey are expressly contradistinguished from the \u201ccourt of common\npleas,\u201d which is a court. This may have been an inadvertence, but it\nshows how he mistook the nature of their powers.\n\n\n\n\n                                SPEECH\n\n DELIVERED, ON TAKING THE CHAIR, AS PRESIDENT OF THE GREAT MASS\n CONVENTION, CALLED, WITHOUT DISTINCTION OF PARTY, IN OPPOSITION TO THE\n FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW, AND HELD AT THE TREMONT TEMPLE IN BOSTON, APRIL 8,\n 1851.[24]\n\n\n  GENTLEMEN OF THE CONVENTION;\n\nI thank you cordially for the honor of being called to this place;\nthough I could have wished that your choice had fallen upon some one of\nthe many more meritorious men whom I see all around me.\n\nGentlemen, I have come here to-day to add my feeble voice to the\nthunder tones of execration against the Fugitive Slave law, with which\nevery free state in this Union, and every free community upon the\nearth, are now echoing and re\u00ebchoing.\n\nI do not propose to occupy your attention long. Where so many things\nare to be said, and so many persons, far better qualified than I am,\nare present to say them, I shall consult at once your advantage and my\nduty, by being brief.\n\nWe have come together with especial reference to the Fugitive Slave\nlaw; but that execrable statute connects itself so directly with almost\nevery other prominent measure of the government, and with the leading\nacts of our public men, during the past year, that it opens the whole\nsubject of human liberty, and our duty, as freemen, in regard to human\nrights. Especially does it behoove us to inquire, by what means, by\nwhose instrumentality, the country has been instigated to this treason\nagainst the rights of men, and when we may expect their machinations\nwill be brought to an end.\n\nSome of our official dignitaries are giving us law lectures on the\nsubject of high treason against the government. I hope they will not\nobject, if we reciprocate the favor, by giving them a lecture on the\nhigher treason against God and humanity, of which they are guilty.\n\nGentlemen, it is with unspeakable humiliation and regret that I look\nback and see where Massachusetts stood twelve or thirteen months ago,\nand where so many of her citizens stand now. Up to that ever-accursed\nday, the 7th of March, 1850, there was not a Massachusetts man, in\nthe councils of the state or nation;--nay, so far as I know, there\nwas not a single Massachusetts man any where, of any standing or\nrespectability, who did not assert and proclaim his hostility to\nthe extension of slavery; his purpose to maintain at all times the\nprinciple of the ordinance of 1787; and his \u201cresolute and fixed\ndetermination,\u201d (to use Mr. Webster\u2019s language,) \u201cto make no further\nconcessions to slavery and the slave power.\u201d The public men of the\nstate, the press of the state, the legislature of the state, avowed\nthese sentiments; and the political conventions of the state rang with\nthese declarations from side to side.\n\nBut on that ever-memorable day a senator of the United States, from\nMassachusetts, saw fit to trample under foot every thing that he\nhad ever said in behalf of human freedom and against human bondage.\nHe saw fit to curl his lip and to intonate his voice in scorn of\nthe principle of the ordinance of 1787, and to dishonor the memory\nof Nathan Dane, whom, a few years before, on the same spot, he had\neulogized. He saw fit to contemn what he knew to be the honest\nsentiments of Massachusetts. He went far, far out of his way, to\nfortify and extend the institution of slavery. He offered to add new\nstates to its power, and to take two hundred millions of dollars\nfrom the treasury of the United States, to be expended for its\nextra-constitutional security and defence.\n\nI shall not dwell upon the perfidious nature of that deed, nor upon\nthe obvious motive that prompted it. I will rather advert to the\nmeasures which have since been taken to corrupt the public sentiment of\nMassachusetts, and of the whole north, and to bring over the people,\nsome to a palliation and others to a full indorsement of it.\n\nAs soon as the stunning effect of that treacherous blow upon all\nthe moral and religious sensibilities of the state, and upon its\ntraditional and inwrought love of liberty, had begun to subside, a\nsystematic effort was commenced to debauch the patriotism and humanity\nof the people, by an appeal to their cupidity. Our manufacturing\nand commercial interests were suffering. A majority of the slave\nstates were the antagonists of these interests. Political ambition\nand mercantile cupidity associated these two facts together, and the\nflagitious idea was engendered that by surrendering our liberty we\nmight have a tariff. The poison of this idea was first openly and\ndirectly infused into the public mind by Mr. Webster, in his speech at\nthe Revere House, April 29th, 1850, when he said, \u201cNeither you nor I\nshall see the legislation of the country proceed in the old harmonious\nway until the discussions in Congress and out of Congress upon the\nsubject to which you have alluded, [slavery,] shall be in some way\nsuppressed. Take this truth home with you, and take it as truth. Until\nsomething can be done to allay the feeling now separating different\nmen and different sections, there can be NO USEFUL AND SATISFACTORY\nlegislation in the two houses of Congress.\u201d\n\nOf this declaration there can be but one interpretation. It was\nperfectly understood by those to whom it was addressed. It says,\nwithout enigma or riddle, surrender the territories to the incursions\nof the slave states, pacify the slave power, give up blood-bought\nrights for this life, and Savior-bought hopes for another, and you can\nhave your pay in a cent a yard on calico, and a cent a pound on iron.\nAnd, as a means of accomplishing this object, it says the discussion of\nthe slavery question must be \u201c_suppressed_.\u201d\n\nFrom that time until the close of the last session of Congress, in\nevery form in which so intrinsically wicked an idea could be set forth\nwithout shocking not only all principle, but all decency, this idea\nwas inculcated upon the public mind of the north, especially upon the\ncities. In unofficial speeches and letters, Mr. Webster urged this\nseduction more and more pointedly and earnestly, until, on the 17th\nof July, 1850, in the last speech which he ever made in Congress, he\nappealed to the senators of the north, and to the people of the north,\nin language as explicit as he could make it, to adopt the compromise\nmeasures, to take even the abhorred Fugitive Slave bill itself, for\nthe sake of the money to be made out of them. Throughout that speech\nhe held out the apple of temptation before their eyes, he jingled\nthe thirty pieces of silver in their ears, to seduce them into the\nsurrender of liberty for pelf.\n\nI appeal to the common knowledge of the citizens of Boston, if, during\nthe last summer, it was not an expression as familiar to their lips as\nthe salutations of the day, that they had Mr. Webster\u2019s authority for\nsaying, that if they would surrender the great questions involved in\nthe compromise, they could have a tariff.\n\nNow, on this state of facts, I have two observations to make,--\n\n1st. That a proposition to barter or to jeopard the liberty of our\nfellow-beings for any amount of money, however great, was intrinsically\ninhuman and wicked.\n\n2d. That every new concession we made to the south on the subject of\nslavery, for the sake of getting protection for our manufactures and\nother industrial interests, only impaired and postponed our chance of\ngetting that protection.\n\nFor the correctness of the first of these propositions, I appeal to\nevery man who has a conscience, or even any elementary ideas of right\nor wrong, which are not smothered by his interests or his passions.\nAnd for the second, I appeal to the case of Texas which defeated the\ntariff of \u201942, and to the fact that, though we did consent to all the\ndetestable provisions of the compromise,--slave territories, slave\nstates, ten millions of dollars for Texas, Fugitive Slave bill, and\nall,--yet we get no tariff, and have now no rational prospect of one.\n\nThat the surrender of all our glorious patrimony of free principles\nshould help to make some northern man President, I can readily\nunderstand. That is intelligible. Before the 7th of March speech,\nit was announced, from high southern sources, that they would take\nthe northern man for the next presidential term who would do the\nmost for slavery; and since that time, the same declaration has been\nreiterated. [See, among others, Mr. Toombs\u2019s speech before the Georgia\nUnion meeting.] But I state it as a fact within my own personal\nknowledge, that there was not an intelligent man in Congress who was\nnot implicated, on the one side, in the manufacture of goods, or, on\nthe other, in the manufacture of presidents, who did not then foresee\nand predict that every forward step we took towards the compromise was\na step backwards from protection. And we now have this stubborn fact\nto show for the soundness of that opinion,--the event has ratified it.\nThey have not obtained the tariff they were promised, though they have\ngiven for it the price of blood.\n\nNow I wish to ask the manufacturers and commercial men of the north,\nwhether, if they had seen,--as it was seen by every unbiased man at\nthe seat of government,--that upholding the compromise would put down\nprotection, they would have consented to the compromise? And a further\nquestion which I wish to put to all Massachusetts and all New England\nis, if, during the last year, we had had the tariff of 1842 in full\noperation, and if the current of prosperity had filled the deepest\nchannels that enterprise and industry had cut for it, whether then\nMassachusetts citizens would have unsaid and retracted all the noble\nthings they have been saying in favor of liberty for the last ten\nyears; whether then the Massachusetts press, or so large a portion of\nit, would be found openly advocating doctrines which they have always\nheretofore professed to hold in utter detestation and abhorrence? No\nman will pretend it. If we had had the tariff of \u201942 last year, the\ncompromise measures never could have passed, and it would have been\nimpossible for any presidential aspirant, or all of them together, to\nhave subdued the northern mind to their acceptance.\n\nThe commercial and manufacturing interests of the north, then, have\nbeen deceived, grossly deceived and imposed upon. When their real\ninterests were all on the side of freedom, they have been made to\nbelieve that it would promote those interests to unsay all they had\never said, and undo all they had ever done adverse to slavery. Their\nchance for a tariff lay in standing to their principles like men, and\nnot in abandoning them like cowards. President-making has been the\nagency, and Cotton has been the instrument, of this deception. It has\nbeen said that the Press is the fourth estate in the realm; but I say\nCotton is the fourth estate, for Cotton subdues the Press. The eyes and\nears and nose and mouth of a portion of our people have been so filled\nwith cotton, that they have come to consider cotton not only as their\ndaily bread, but their bread of life.\n\nGentlemen, whatever convictions or doubts there may be on the subject\nof Animal Magnetism, I am a firm believer in Cotton Magnetism. The\nsouthern planter seems to possess some wizard art, unknown to the\ndemonology of former times, by which he impregnates his bales of cotton\nwith a spirit of inhumanity, with a contempt for all the dearest,\ntenderest, holiest ties that bind man to man and heart to heart; he\nfills them with this spirit as an electrician fills a Leyden jar, and\nthen he sends them here; and if the man who comes within the circle of\ntheir influence is not himself filled with the strong, counteracting,\ndisinfecting magnetism of duty and truth, of love to God and love to\nman, he is overcome and subdued by the infernal spell; he is brought\ninto \u201ccommunication\u201d with the southern sorcerer, and into subjection to\nhis will; and then he seems bereft of reason and conscience, he belies\nhis Pilgrim parentage, talks gibberish about the dissolution of the\nUnion, kneels, lies down, eats dirt, and says to his southern master,\nas Balaam\u2019s beast said to him, \u201c_Am I not thine ass upon which thou\nhast ridden ever since I was thine?_\u201d\n\nStill worse is it, when this cotton, so diabolically impregnated,\ngets beneath the rich velvet seats and embossed cushions of the\npulpit;--unless, indeed, a double measure of the spirit of the Lord\nshall descend upon the preacher and exorcise both him and it, of the\nevil spirit it contains. When the soul of the clergyman is struck with\nthis cotton magnetism, he grows delirious over his Bible, ignores\nthe new dispensation, seeks out all the pro-slavery parts of the\nold, discards Jesus Christ as his example, and the precepts of Jesus\nChrist as the law of his ministrations, and proves himself a pagan,\ndiscoursing paganism in a Christian pulpit.\n\nGod grant that this kind of cotton may never stuff the cushions of\nour judges! I fear we are not wholly out of danger of so unspeakable\na calamity. Give us the old English woolsack for them, within whose\nmagic presence the chains of the slave drop from his limbs, and he is\ngloriously transfigured into a man.\n\nCompare the newspapers of our cities now with what they were only one\nshort twelvemonth ago, and see what demoralization cotton can work when\nit gets into editorial chairs.\n\nAs for those slave-catching commissioners who assume to exercise the\nfunctions of judges, to abolish human liberty, and to find property\nin the bodies and souls of men, but are no more a judge than an image\n\u201cmade after supper of a cheese-paring\u201d is a man,--as for them, I\nsay, they seem to have this virus the natural way; and if all moral\ndiagnosis does not fail, it would be found, on an anatomical dissection\nof their hearts, that their right and left auricle and their right and\nleft ventricle were only four cotton bolls.\n\nBut I believe that the reign of Cotton is to be short-lived.\nImprovements in the arts give confident promise that some new textile\nsubstance will soon be discovered which will supersede this slave-made\nand slave-making material. Even should this hope fail, every body sees\nwhat an unnatural attitude of power and strength the cotton-producing\nstates now occupy. Extending over only a small area of territory, which\nyou can cover on the map with your hand, they raise a staple which\nclothes, more or less, a great part of the world; while there are\nBrazil, Egypt, India, and regions of unknown vastness in Africa, to all\nof which, or nearly all of which, the plant is indigenous. Either then\nby the progress of the arts, or by an extension of cultivation, the\nmajesty of Cotton will soon be dethroned; and then, _then_, how will\nthese men appear, historically, who are now willing to trample upon\nhuman rights, and to send men, women, and children into all the horrors\nof southern bondage for the temporary profits which cotton can bestow?\n\nI rejoice that this reference to the demoralizing power of interest\ngives me an opportunity to bestow well-deserved honor and praise upon\na class of men who have nobly withstood its temptations. Not every man\nengaged in manufactures or in commerce has yielded to the seductions of\nthis tempter. There are many noble exceptions. I have in my mind one\nof my own constituents largely interested in manufactures, who told me\nlast summer that half his spindles were lying idle, and property that\nshould have yielded income was incurring cost; \u201cbut,\u201d said he, \u201cdo you\nsee them _all_ stop, and the mills decay and go down stream, before you\nvote for that compromise.\u201d Another of my constituents told me he was\nlargely interested in three ships, then at sea; but declared he would\nsee them all sink to its bottom before he would disgrace the country by\npassing the Fugitive Slave bill. These are but specimens of that noble\nspirit which was expressed with such Spartan terseness and vigor by\nBowen & McNamee, of New York, when the foul panders to southern slavery\nthreatened them with a loss of custom. Said they, \u201cOur goods, and not\nour principles, are in the market.\u201d\n\nO, how these declarations contrast with what a manufacturer in a\nneighboring county is reported to have said,--that if he could work\nhis mills any cheaper with slave labor than with free, he would\nemploy slaves! And what, also, as I am credibly informed, another has\nsaid,--\u201cThe south want slaves to raise cotton to sell; we want slaves\nto raise cotton to manufacture; therefore, we must unite with the south\nto uphold slavery.\u201d Now, I believe these things to have been _said_;\nbut it is of no consequence whether they were said or not; we know they\nhave been _acted_. Every man who upholds this Fugitive Slave law _acts_\nthem, whatever his language may be.\n\nThe compromise was forced through Congress partly by government\ninterference, and partly by the delusive hope of a tariff. An appeal is\nnow made, in behalf of the Fugitive Slave law, to the same mercenary\nmotives. It is said, if opposition be made to this law, however legal\nor constitutional such opposition may be, we shall lose southern\ncustom. Base and infamous appeal! Such men are made of the stuff of\nthe tories of the revolution. Even if this appeal were true, it would\nbe one that no honorable man could hear without indignation. But it\nis not true. The south must have their goods from somewhere, and our\nindustrious artisans will make them, whoever the go-betweens may be.\nWill the south go bare-headed and bare-footed and unkilted, because\nthey cannot have a law to catch freemen and slaves promiscuously?\nBut it is said the south will abandon their slothful habits, become\nindustrious, and manufacture for themselves. I wish they would. It\nwould be most fortunate for us. They would then have the means of\nbuying more from the north, and paying us better for what they do buy.\nInstead of spending only the money which their slaves earn, they would\nthen have money to spend earned by the whites, and would become better\ncustomers for those ever new forms of commodities which our industry\nand inventive skill, while we keep our schoolhouses in operation, will\nalways be able to supply.\n\nNow, fellow-citizens, I have gone into these considerations for the\npurpose of ascertaining and of measuring the extent and the efficacy\nof the motives brought by our opponents to bear against us. You see\nthey are mercenary, almost exclusively so. As for that bugbear of a\ndissolution of the Union, I say, without fear of contradiction, that no\npractical man has ever believed in it for a day. United States stocks\nat a hundred and sixteen, on the eve of a dissolution of the Union!\nThe whole South Carolina, and Mississippi, and Texas delegations in\nCongress contending for every local advantage, for the establishment\nof new United States courts, for the increase of salaries, for\nappointments at home and abroad, as though the Union had been just\ninsured for a thousand years! Show me one intelligent man in the whole\ncountry who has sold his stocks or his farm, or changed his residence,\nor altered his course of life in any respect, through fear that the\nUnion was about to be dissolved. I think some persons may have left\nSouth Carolina, to get rid of the clamor about dissolving it. Why,\nwhat would the English national debt be worth under any well-founded\napprehension that the British monarchy was crumbling to pieces? There\nwould not be a pound of government securities that could not be bought\nfor a penny. Confidence in the stability of our Union has not only\npervaded this country, but other countries. The great bankers abroad\nwho deal in our stocks have never changed their terms one mill in a\nmillion of dollars, through any such idle fear. They are the men whose\nbarometers presage political storms. With such facts before us, to\nsay that the Union has been in danger is as absurd as to say that a\nwhirlwind is raging when the leaf of the aspen is pendulous, and cannot\nbe seen to move. If the south wishes to dissolve the Union, let them do\nit, and at the end of thirty years there will be no slave in all their\nborders. The slaves will have made a new Jamaica or a new St. Domingo\nof it, as the masters shall behave themselves. No, this is nothing\nbut a clumsy trick of the politicians; and if any one of them could\nbe nominated for the presidency, we should hear nothing more from him\nabout any deluge which threatens to submerge the Union. They profess\npeculiar love for the Union. Their clamorous notes bring to mind what\nDr. Franklin remarked of self-righteous people. He said they always\nreminded him of scarcity of provisions;--those who had enough said\nnothing about it; it was the destitute who made all the clamor.\n\nI say, then, the only remaining motive with which our adversaries\ncan work is the loss of southern trade. This interests but few of\nour people. The farmers are not interested in it. The mechanics\nand artisans are not. The operatives in our mills are not. All our\nsubstantial, industrious classes are above this temptation, and would\nspurn it if they were not above it. The Fugitive Slave law champions,\nthen, can make no more converts among them. Let us, then, continue\nto oppose this law in all constitutional modes. Let us explain its\nreligious and moral bearings to the Christian. Let us tell the\npatriot of the disgrace it brings upon our country. Let us show\nto the working-man that those who are ready to make slaves of his\nfellow-beings for lucre will be equally ready to make a slave of him\nwhenever interest shall supply the temptation.\n\nFellow-citizens, it has been asked why we are assembled here to-day,\nand not in the Hall consecrated to liberty. It is because the doors\nof that hall have been closed to Liberty knocking for admission. But\nthere is a melancholy propriety in this. When the court house is in\nchains, Faneuil Hall may well be dumb. Those chains which girt the\ncourts of justice are but typical of the chains which tyrannous men are\nstriving to put upon our lips. This is not the first temple that has\nbeen unrighteously invaded and taken possession of by money changers\nand those who sold doves,--doves! _doves_!! No, not doves,--but men,\nwomen, and children. But I trust the time is not far distant when a\nbetter spirit shall enter their doors, and shall scourge out their\ninvaders with cords, smaller or larger, as the exigencies of the case\nmay require.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[24] This meeting was held pending the trial, before Mr. Commissioner\nCurtis, of Thomas Sims, an alleged fugitive slave from Georgia. During\nthe trial, the Boston court house was surrounded by a large police\nforce, and was enclosed in chains, beneath which the judges of the\nsupreme court of Massachusetts bowed as they entered and retired.\n\n\n\n\n                                SPEECH\n\n DELIVERED AT WORCESTER, SEPTEMBER 16, 1851, ON TAKING THE CHAIR AS\n PRESIDENT OF THE FREE SOIL STATE CONVENTION.\n\n\n  GENTLEMEN OF THE CONVENTION;\n\nAccept my thanks. It would be an honor at any time to stand in\nthis position before a body of men so large in their number and so\ninfluential by their respectability. But, gentlemen, at this hour of\ntrial, at this time of peril to great principles, when the lights\nupon earth seem to be going out around us, and we must look for\nguidance to the lights above,--at this hour, I say, of trial and of\nperil, it is an especial honor to be called to a post of duty. The\nposition of the friends of freedom at the present time reminds me of a\nbeautiful sentiment expressed by one of the noblest of the old Roman\nphilosophers, who said that those who were called to fill stations\nof danger and self-sacrifice should thank God for the honor of being\ndeemed worthy of such a trust.[25]\n\nGentlemen, it was not until this morning, and since sunrise, that I was\nwaited upon by a delegation from your state committee, requesting my\npresence on this occasion. They knew, and you all know, how strongly my\nheart throbs, even at the mention of the great principles for which you\ncontend. They knew, as you all know, how happy I should be if I could\ndo any thing to deepen or to diffuse a feeling of devotion to human\nfreedom.\n\nBut, gentlemen, there were certain circumstances connected with my\nposition which seemed to make it necessary for me to say to your\ndelegation, that, if I should appear here to-day, it should be with an\nentire privilege to speak out my mind fully on any political subject,\nand to say in what relation I stand to the present condition of public\naffairs, both state and national.\n\nI say, then, gentlemen, that I stand where I have always stood, holding\nthe principles of human freedom first and foremost in my regards, and,\nafter these, our pecuniary, or merely worldly interests; holding,\naccording to the order in which they are mentioned in the constitution\nof the United States, \u201clife and liberty\u201d to be before \u201cproperty.\u201d I\nstand where I stood in 1848, when I was first elected to Congress; and\nwhere my recorded votes and speeches show me to have stood through\nall the struggles of 1849 and \u201950. I stand on the same principles\nyet. If other men have seen fit to go off to the right hand or to the\nleft, I remain where I was. And if any individual of any party,--Whig,\nDemocrat, or by whatever other appellation he may be known,--shall ever\nreturn from his wanderings to the good old homestead of Massachusetts\nprinciples,--Free Soil, Free Speech, and Free Men,--there, in that\nimmortal birthplace of human liberty, he will find me, early in the\nmorning and late at night, hard at work, to maintain the honor of the\nPilgrims and the principles of our revolutionary sires.\n\nGentlemen, the perusal of the address and resolutions put forth by the\nWhig State Convention at Springfield, last week, brought me here. It\nseems to me that no true lover of human freedom can read that address\nand those resolutions intelligently, and understand their full scope\nand bearing, without being struck down by conviction, as suddenly as\nwas St. Paul,--though the light and the voice come from an opposite\nquarter. Whatever the design of those papers may have been, their\nwhole argument and office are to wheel the Whig party into line, to\nfight the battles of slavery.\n\nUnder these circumstances, I do not ask with a certain distinguished\nindividual, on the prospective breaking up of parties, \u201cWhere am I to\n_go_?\u201d I believe I do but echo the sentiments of thousands of as good\nand true Whigs as can be found in this commonwealth, (and there are\nnone better any where,) when I say that, let others go where they will,\nhere, _here_, on the old Whig platform of opposition to the extension\nof slavery, either into New Mexico _or into New England_; of freedom\nfor the District of Columbia; and in favor of the old guaranties of\n_habeas corpus_ and trial by jury,--_here I remain_.\n\nGentlemen, the Free Soil party, as the name imports, is the party of\nfreedom. The cardinal principle of their _creed_ is, that \u201call men are\ncreated free and equal,\u201d and that they have an inalienable right to\n\u201clife, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.\u201d Their _faith_\nconsists in the assurance that, in the good providence of God, the day\nwill yet come when the blessedness of their creed will be realized\namong men; and by their _works_ they seek to hasten the advent of that\nglorious day.\n\nA party of Freedom has existed in all ages of the world, but a mightier\nparty of oppression has been arrayed against it. And though the lovers\nof human liberty have consisted of the greatest and best men who have\never lived, yet they have been overborne by violence, crushed and\ntrampled upon by power, buried in dungeons, gibbeted on scaffolds,\nburnt at the stake! God, like the householder who sent servants to\nhis vineyard from a far country, has, from age to age, sent great and\nmighty souls into the world to redeem it from oppression; but the\noppressor has seized and mutilated and martyred them, with every form\nof ignominy towards the messengers themselves, and of impiety towards\nthe Lord who sent them. The possessors of power and wealth seek to\nperpetuate these advantages in their families, their clan, or their\ncaste; and over almost all the earth they have established dynasties\nfor governments, landed or moneyed feudalisms for lords, and entails\nfor individual families.\n\nThat we may see how fearful a thing this spirit of oppression is, not\nonly for its cruelties, but for the tenacity of its malignant life, let\nit be remembered that the world had existed almost six thousand years\nbefore the principles of human liberty, civil and ecclesiastical, were\nclearly and fully set forth even on paper. This was first done by Mr.\nJefferson, in 1776, in the Declaration of American Independence; and\nevery body knows how intensely the same partisans who are now summoning\ntheir forces against the party of Freedom have hated him for his\nglorious efforts in favor of the freedom of man; how they pursued him\nwith maledictions to his grave, and still break through the sanctity of\nthe tomb to blacken his memory.\n\nThe immortal principles of the Declaration of Independence were\npartially embodied in the constitution of the United States. But,\nas the pre\u00ebxisting metaphysics and mythology of the heathen nations\nmingled with the pure spirit of Christianity, and corrupted it, so the\npre\u00ebxisting laws and usages of oppression deformed to some extent the\ndoctrines of the Declaration of Independence, and stamped some hideous\nfeatures upon the otherwise fair face of the federal constitution.\nBut such a preponderance of good did that instrument contain, that\nit was adopted by all the states. It was adopted, however, with the\nuniversal understanding that the healing influence of time would purge\naway the virus of the disease; and with no apprehension of the now\nundeniable fact, that the disease would be allowed to spread, like a\ngangrene, over the healthy parts. Had our fathers foreseen that the\npro-slavery clauses in the constitution would prove a curse to whole\nclasses and races of men entitled to protection under it, that they\nwould be a shame to its administrators, and an opprobrium, throughout\nthe civilized world, to the name of Republic,--it would be impious\ntowards their memories to say they would ever have ratified it. But\ninstead of the sounder parts diffusing healthful influences, and\ngradually eradicating the disease, the diseased parts have shot their\ninfection through all the veins and organs of the body politic, until,\nfrom the heart to the extremities, there is not now to be found an\nuncontaminated spot.\n\nOr to leave metaphor for literal speech: The constitution of the United\nStates gave the most comprehensive and fundamental guaranties in favor\nof freedom, with here and there only an exception in behalf of slavery.\nIt allowed \u201cpersons\u201d who were held to service or labor and who should\nescape into other states to be retaken, but it also secured the trial\nby jury to every \u201cperson\u201d who should claim it on any question of life\nor liberty, and on all questions of property even down to the paltry\nsum of twenty dollars. Yet there is not now, in the United States, a\nsingle spot, from ocean to ocean, where a free man is free from danger\nof being kidnapped and carried into horrible bondage for himself and\nhis posterity forever; or,--what is as keenly torturing to every\nmind penetrated by the spirit and amenable to the precepts of the\ngospel,--of being called upon, under penalty of fines and fetters, to\nsurrender his soul to this accursed work.\n\nNow, as a true disciple of Christ ought to feel if he saw the imbruting\ndogmas and Moloch rites of heathenism returning to invade Christendom\nand to extinguish the lights of the gospel, so should every lover of\nliberty feel when he sees the fell spirit of slavery regaining its lost\nempire over the institutions of freedom.\n\nThe analogy between the present condition of this country and that of\nEurope is too striking not to attract attention. In 1848, there was a\ngreat uprising of the friends of liberty in both hemispheres. Thousands\nand tens of thousands sought to redress the wrongs of humanity,--by\nthe cartridge box there, and by the ballot box here. The phalanx of\ntyranny and of mammon was unprepared for so sudden an onset, and\nfor a moment their ranks were broken by the violence of the shock.\nBut despotism and wealth have almost inconceivable advantages in a\ncontest with the honest and toiling millions. In Europe, they have the\nmilitary force,--a soulless machine, always ready to be turned against\nthe people who are made to maintain it. They have also the whole\necclesiastical power, which leans upon the government for support, and\nfights with spiritual weapons for the masters whose plunder it shares.\n\nIn this country, owing to our different institutions, the means of\nquelling the spirit of liberty have been different. The administration\nhave an immense amount of patronage at their disposal. They give\ncontracts to the amount of millions, and select the contractors.\nDirectly, or indirectly, they appoint some thirty thousand\noffice-holders; and, by a lamentable reduplication of the powers\nof evil, they control twice or four times that number who are\naspirants for office. Their influence bought over the slave power, by\nsurrendering all our new territories to the invasion of slavery, and\nby giving fifty thousand square miles of free New Mexican territory\nto be turned into Texan slave territory, thus adding to the already\nenormous size of that slave-begotten state. Ten millions of dollars\nof almost worthless Texan stock were raised to par value by the\nsignature of Millard Fillmore. During the whole pendency of the\ncompromise measures, agents and brokers, reputed to be interested in\nthis stock, hovered about the purlieus of the national Capitol. The\nstock was transferred from hand to hand, without record and without\ndaylight, so that, besides the accomplices, Heaven and Satan only know\ninto whose possession it came. And, as though the means of patronage\nand seducement on so magnificent a scale were not sufficient, a\nprivate purse, almost up to the figure of fifty thousand dollars, was\npresented to the \u201cforemost man of all this world\u201d in his apostasy to\nthe principles of human liberty. These, fellow-citizens, were among the\nagencies and seductions which caused the discomfiture of the friends\nof freedom in the national contest of 1850. The tyrants of Europe had\nno vacant lands, or Texas stocks, wherewith to put down humanity, and\nso they used gunpowder and bayonets. Our slave power and its northern\nallies, being debarred by the principles of our government from bullets\nand bayonets, accomplished their work by the Judas articles of scrip\nand \u201cdotation.\u201d To carry out these purposes, the generals Haynau and\nRadetsky were found there; the senators, Webster and Cass, here.\n\nThe origin and the present necessity of the Free Soil party may be\nbriefly stated. Some years previous to the annexation of Texas, an\napprehension existed that that great breach of the constitution and\noutrage upon northern principles and feelings were meditated. Mr.\nJohn Quincy Adams sounded the alarm; but men were so engrossed by\ntheir business, and by their paltry local and temporary political\nstrifes, that even his voice, potent and prophetic as it was, passed\nby unheeded. Some respect, however, was due, at least from policy\nif not from principle, to the many humble but earnest opponents of\nso flagrant a wrong. Before the consummation of that iniquity, the\nMassachusetts legislature passed strong resolutions against it. The\nquestion was taken by yeas and nays, and all the Whigs and almost all\nthe Democrats in the general court recorded their names on the side of\nthe constitution and liberty. But the slave power then had possession\nof all the departments of the national government, and under the\nauspices of a slaveholding President, a breach was made in the walls of\nthe constitution wide enough to let in a foreign government, with all\nits burden of slavery on its back. Yet, notwithstanding this perfidy to\nall the principles of a true democracy, such was the external pressure\nbrought to bear upon the members of the Democratic party, that but\nfew of them abandoned its ranks. They \u201c_acquiesced_,\u201d as the modern\nphrase is, when any thing specially iniquitous is to be sanctioned.\nThey were told, as the Whigs are now told in regard to the compromise\nand the Fugitive Slave law, that the act was _done and irrevocable_.\nThe merchants were told, as the Whig merchants now are, that the crime\nof extending slavery would at least be attended by increased profits\nof trade. The manufacturers were told, as the Whig manufacturers now\nare, that if the number of slaves were increased at the south, it\nmust create an increased demand for whips and negro cloths. And the\nmere blind political partisans were told, as the same class of Whigs\nare now, that if God designed to stop the heaven-defying enormity\nof spreading slavery over this continent, he must do it in some way\nconsistent with the integrity of the Democratic party. Precisely the\narguments which were then used to seduce and corrupt the Democratic\nparty into \u201c_acquiescence_\u201d are used by leading Whigs and Whig presses\nnow for the same unhallowed purpose. They are alike, except that in\nthe one case there was the crime of originality, and in the other, the\nmeanness of plagiarism.\n\nBut from the fatal day of the annexation of Texas, thousands and\nthousands of honest and intelligent Democrats, though still remaining\ntrue to what they believed to be the principles of the party, became\nalienated from its leaders. From that day, the claims of the party lay\nlightly, but the sins of the party heavily, upon their souls; and some\nthere were who, like Daniel of old, went into their chambers three\ntimes every day, and, throwing open the windows which looked towards\nthe Jerusalem of liberty, prayed aloud to the true God, although within\nhearing of the wild beasts which had been prepared to devour them.\n\nThe Whig party at the north, and particularly in Massachusetts,\nflourished under the re\u00e4ction of the Texas fraud. Some of its leaders,\nit is true, shouted a welcome to Texas, though yet afar off; and, even\nwhile she stood outside of the Union, they threw their arms around her\nblood-besmeared form, hideous as Milton\u2019s picture of Sin, with all her\nhell-hound progeny of future slave states howling in her womb, and\ngave her a fraternal embrace; and when the time came, they were also\nready to vote men and money,--human blood and human souls,--for the\nrobber atrocities of the Mexican war, which a majority of the House of\nRepresentatives in Congress, on motion of Mr. Ashmun, of Massachusetts,\ndeclared to be \u201cunnecessarily and unconstitutionally commenced.\u201d My\nfriends, in your observations of men, you will find there are some\nmoral nonentities,--political availabilities though they may be,--who\ncan listen most sanctimoniously to the Saint Stephens, when they\nprophesy, and then hold the clothes of the Lynchers who stone them to\ndeath.\n\nDuring all this period, however, the managers and the presses of the\nWhig party discoursed and printed very edifying anti-slavery homilies.\nAs the harvest months came on, an anti-slavery zeal became an epidemic\namong them; and sporadic cases happened at other times, depending upon\nthe days and places appointed by the governor and council for special\nelections. Every body remembers how the Boston _Atlas_ used to stir\nup the pure minds of the Democratic party by way of remembrance, by\npublishing,--periodically, as they say, and sometimes oftener,--the\nnames of those Democratic senators or representatives in our general\ncourt who had voted for freedom and against Texas, in order to show\ntheir flagrant inconsistency in still adhering to a party that had\nbeen false to liberty. That paper has done some good service to our\ncause, especially in holding up for a long time the Fugitive Slave act\nto reprobation, while the other Whig presses in the city were daily\nstriving to hide its atrocities from public view, and to defend what\nthey could not hide. I trust the reluctant and struggling editors of\nthat paper are not to be overcome by the mammon of slavery, whatever\ndisguises it may assume or compulsion it may use. I trust the slave\npower will never be able to use towards them the language which hell\u2019s\nportress addressed to Satan:--\n\n    \u201cAt first they called me _Sin_, and for a sign\n    Portentous held me; but, familiar grown,\n    I pleased, and with attractive graces won\n    _The most averse; thee chiefly_.\u201d\n\nThose prosperous days of the Massachusetts Whigs continued until 1848.\nThey thrived in basket and in store, until, like Jeshurun, they waxed\nfat, and, at least in the fourth and fifth congressional districts,\nthey performed some very hard kicking. Then came the nomination of\nGeneral Taylor. General Taylor was a Louisiana slaveholder. He had\nbeen the hero of the Florida war,--as great an outrage against a race\nas ever Rome or Russia committed. He had been a prominent, and, as\nmany believed, a willing instrument in spilling the innocent blood of\na sister republic. Even should the executive divest him of military\ncommand, or he should grow too old for service, it was universally\nknown that there was a full black battalion on his own plantation\nwhich he would always command. The south demanded his nomination\nabsolutely. They would hear no terms, and would offer no terms. In the\nnorthern canvass it was strongly asserted that he had written a letter,\nsaying in so many words that he would not veto the Wilmot proviso;\nbut that letter was so warily kept in a certain unmentionable part of\na Whig merchant\u2019s wardrobe, that neither Mesmerizers nor spiritual\nrappers could read it aloud to the people.\n\nHence all omens foreboded evil. Those which we looked for on the earth\naugured ill to our earthly interests; and those which we looked for\nabove were in the wrong quarter of the heavens. The character of many\nof General Taylor\u2019s friends brought distrust upon himself. He owed his\nelection far more to the repulsion which good men felt towards his\nopponent, [General Cass,] than to any attraction they had towards him.\n\nIt was an occasion that tried the sagacity and the discretion of honest\nmen, and I have always felt great charity both for his advocates and\nhis opponents;--each being able to make out so plausible a case.\nThe course which the Connecticut clergyman took on that occasion\nalways commended itself to me. He voted the Taylor electoral ticket,\nbut indorsed a prayer on the back of his ballot, saying that he was\npainfully uncertain as to the course of duty, and imploring that his\nvote might be sanctified for the good of the country.\n\nBut I am happy to avail myself of this, and of all opportunities,\nto do justice to the name of General Taylor. He turned out a very\ndifferent man from what his friends or his foes supposed him to be. I\nbelieve he desired freedom for all the territories; and, could he have\nbeen permitted to carry out his own plans, he would have secured not\nonly the freedom of the territories, but would also have consummated\nall the great national measures of the party that brought him into\npower. Mr. Clay threw the first stumbling-block in his way, by his\ncompromise scheme. This, alone, might have been surmounted. But Mr.\nWebster\u2019s apostasy, on the seventh of March, turned the tide of battle.\nIt broke up General Taylor\u2019s phalanx, both north and south. It roused\nthe drooping and just yielding spirits of the slave power to frantic\nexertion. An enemy on the field General Taylor was always ready to\nmeet; but he was not prepared for treachery in his own camp. Still,\nhe maintained his ground resolutely, until struck down by the power\nthat conquers the conquerors. There are many who believe it was Mr.\nWebster\u2019s perfidy, with the nameless labors and anxieties that came\nin its train, which caused General Taylor\u2019s death. It remains to be\nseen whether the political Macbeth shall succeed to the Banquo he\nspirited away, though all the \u201cweird\u201d brethren of the slave mart and\nof the \u201cUnion and Safety Committees\u201d still tempt him onward by their\nincantations.\n\nBut it was under the circumstances of General Taylor\u2019s nomination, and\nnot of his death, that a portion of the Free Soilers parted company\nwith the Whigs; as another portion did with the Democrats, because of\nGeneral Cass\u2019s avowed subserviency to the south,--and the conduct of\nall men is to be judged by the circumstances contemporary with their\nacts, and not subsequent to them.\n\nIf, however, there are those who judge of motives by results, this\ncertainly can be said in vindication of the Free Soil party, that the\nnow acting President of the United States, who came in on General\nTaylor\u2019s ticket, and is now completing his presidential term, has done\nmore for slavery than the Free Soil party ever predicted or feared\nwould or could be done by the candidates whom they opposed. Even now,\nwhen the third year of the presidential term is but half spent, the\nWhig administration, aided by many leaders in the Whig party, is\ncarrying out, with a relentless hand, and a more relentless heart,\nworse pro-slavery measures than the Free Soil party ever charged upon\nthem during the canvass, or ever believed or conceived they could\ncommit.\n\nSuch was the position of affairs in Massachusetts in 1848, when, almost\nfor the first time within the memory of man, the Whigs failed, at the\npolls, to elect electors of President and Vice President.\n\nLet us dwell for a moment on that crisis. It was during the canvass\nof 1848 that the Whigs became so amorous towards the rank and file of\nthe Free Soil party. No knight-errant ever protested more fidelity,\nor vowed to do more valorous deeds in his mistress\u2019 cause. Than some\nof them, no dove ever cooed with a sweeter gurgle. Than others, no\nstag ever offended with a ranker breath. They wooed them by daylight,\nby moonlight, and by torchlight. They swore belief not only in all\nthe Free Soil scriptures, but in the traditions of its rabbins. The\nOrdinance of \u201987 they loved; the Wilmot proviso they loved better; and\nwould the coy damsel of Free Soilism but consent to the affiance, the\nabolition of slavery in the District of Columbia should gladden the\nespousals. Every Whig rally, from ward and school district meetings\nto monster mass meetings, resounded with Mr. Webster\u2019s _slogan_, or\nwar-cry, \u201cNo more slave states! No more slave representation in the\nCongress of the United States!\u201d The Boston Daily _Advertiser_, the\n_Courier_, and the _Journal_, which are now south of South Carolina,\nin the impiety of the grounds on which they defend the wrongs and\nthe aggressions of slavery, and shout on slave hunts over Pilgrim\nburial grounds,--all gave back the cry, with three times three, \u201cNo\nmore slave states! No more slave representation in the Congress of\nthe United States!\u201d At all their conventions, the Whigs \u201cresolved\nand re-resolved,\u201d and--but I hope we may not be compelled to finish\nthe line. You were told there was no more need of a Free Soil party\nin Massachusetts than of two suns in the heavens. The Whigs were the\ntrue Free Soilers; they held Free Soilism as a hereditament, or as\nan heir-loom long possessed by the ancient family of the Whigs. Even\nMr. Webster, who had very much withdrawn from public gaze after the\nPhiladelphia convention, and who, like Achilles, sat \u201csulking in his\ntent\u201d and musing over the lost Briseis of a nomination, was at last\ntempted, by a succession of brilliant retaining fees, to come forth and\nreason with these recusant and contumacious Free Soilers face to face.\nAnd what did he say? Addressing himself distinctively to Free Soilers,\nhe said, \u201cIf, my friends, the term \u2018Free Soil\u2019 party, or \u2018Free Soil\u2019\nmen, is meant to designate one who has been fixed, unalterable, to-day,\nyesterday, and for some time past, in opposition to slavery extension,\nthen I may claim to be, and may hold myself, as good a Free Soil man\nas any member of that Buffalo convention. I pray to know where is\ntheir soil freer than that on which I have stood? I pray to know what\nwords they can use, or can dictate to me, freer than those which have\ndwelt upon my lips. I pray to know with what feelings they can inspire\nmy breast _more resolute and firm in resisting slavery_ EXTENSION OR\nENCROACHMENT than have inhabited my bosom since the first time I opened\nmy mouth in public life.\u201d\n\nThese, gentlemen, were his words, spoken at Marshfield, on the first\nday of September, 1848. If he were here to-day to address you, could he\nspeak any _words_ more grateful to your ears? If only truth and a heart\nwere in that language, could he speak any thing better?\n\nIt was by such false pretences as these that thousands, and I doubt\nnot tens of thousands, of men wholly penetrated and imbued with Free\nSoil principles, were kept in the Whig ranks. I was one of them. I had\nfaith in men; and I have it still,--with important exceptions however.\nThe needle points to the pole; but if you bring a huge black mass of\npig iron and place by its side, it trembles, yet deviates, like a man\nstruggling to be virtuous before overwhelming temptations. Remove the\ndisturbing force, and it returns to its fidelity. So, when the next\npresidential election is over, I believe the great body of the rank\nand file of the Whig party in Massachusetts will return to their duty;\nfor I venture to say, that if the Whigs of Massachusetts, in November,\n1848, could have foreseen the present position of their party, and the\ndemoralization which its leaders have been able to work in it, not one\nthird of them, no, not one quarter of them, could have been induced\nto vote the ticket that elected Mr. Fillmore, brought in the present\ncabinet, and brought on the present disastrous policy.\n\nBut, gentlemen, I am occupying too much of your time. I will add but a\nfew more words. I said the address and resolutions of the Whig State\nConvention, held at Springfield, last week, brought me here. I have\nread them with profound sorrow. It was the first Whig convention that\never met in Massachusetts that did not at least put forth some noble\ndoctrines in favor of freedom, whether they meant to stand by them or\nnot. Yes, even the convention of 1850,--only one year ago,--passed the\nfollowing:--\n\n \u201c_Resolved_, That Massachusetts avows her unalterable determination\n to maintain all the principles and purposes she has in times past\n affirmed and re\u00e4ffirmed, in relation to the extension of slavery.\u201d\n\nAnd yet the late convention, the first one that has met since the\nresolution which I have just read was adopted, has endorsed the\npresent administration, which has done more to corrupt and deaden\npublic sentiment at the north, as to the wrongs of slavery to the\nenslaved, and its injury to the free, and to aggrandize the pro-slavery\nsouth, and foster and encourage, ay, and _reward_ its aggressions;--has\ndone more, I say, than any other administration that ever existed under\nthis government. History will bear me out in this statement. Yet, at\nthis crisis in human affairs, the one idea, the master purpose of the\naddress and resolutions of that convention, seems to have been, to\ndisparage and depreciate the great, eternal principles of freedom, and\nto bring odium and contempt upon the only party now organized for their\nsupport.\n\nGentlemen, the Whig leaders, in this respect, and in regard to this\nmost important and paramount attribute of the Whig party, have lurched\nand lurched round, until they have got into the very trough of the\npro-slavery sea. Its members, I admit, are free to follow them to their\nruin, if they will; but free, too, I thank God, to go on in their old\ncourse, steering for the haven of honor and liberty. I give the great\nmajority even of the Whig leaders the credit of having yielded to this\npressure reluctantly, and under what they deemed a sort of political\nduress; for, gentlemen, a new and most alarming fact in the history of\nthe Whig party of this country has been developed within the last two\nyears. It is this: formerly, and universally, the Whig administration\nwas supposed to be chosen to carry out the views of the Whig party; but\nthe present administration, having abandoned the grounds on which it\nobtained power, and having, for its own purposes, taken new grounds,\nnow demands of the Whig party to carry out,--not the old policy of the\nWhigs, but the new policy of the administration.\n\nFellow-citizens, could Mr. Fillmore by any possibility have been\nelected, in 1848; could he have got so many as ten thousand votes\namong all the Whigs of the Northern States, had his present attitude on\nthe subject of slavery been foreseen?\n\nWas there ever an hour when Mr. Webster could have obtained one\ntenth part,--one fiftieth part,--of the votes of the Massachusetts\nlegislature for the office of senator, had the curtain of the future\nbeen lifted up, and his present position been revealed? You know there\nnever was. But, during the year 1850, without any initial change, or\nsymptom of a change, on the part of northern Whigs, the administration,\nprompted by its own purposes, or yielding from its own weakness,\nfaced square about; and ever since that time it has been striving,\nby all the lures of patronage and the terrors of denunciation, to\nforce the Whigs of the north on to a kind of political turn-table,\nlike those railroad turn-tables you see at a car-house, so that the\nwhole party, too, should be faced square about, made to retrace their\ncourse, by going backward among the same people who had seen them go\nforward, shouting down all they had shouted up, and forswearing all the\nglorious doctrines of liberty to which the whole world had heard them\nswear. Gentlemen, if, in this stress of circumstances, any body asks\nme, \u201cWhere shall I go?\u201d my reply is, Don\u2019t get on to that political\nturn-table which the administration has prepared for the Whig party,\nand not the Whig party for the administration; for it will carry your\ncountry to ruin, and yourself to dishonor.\n\nDuring the canvass last autumn for a member of Congress for the eighth\ndistrict, when, as you all know, there were such \u201cgodlike\u201d exertions\nmade against my election, I was asked, as a test question, by numbers\nof most respectable members of the Whig party, what I thought of the\nFree Soil party, and their proposed coalition at that time. I replied\nto them in the following words, and my answer is now on record in the\nhands of my constituents: \u201cI say, as I have often said, that, if the\nWhigs will live up to their professions a hundred times made, I see no\nreason or warrant for separate organizations or coalitions. But if the\ngreat body of the Whigs mean to belie all their professions, and to\npersecute and punish all who remain faithful to the lessons which the\nWhig party itself has been teaching so strenuously for so many years,\nthen what true Whig can blame any man for attempting to carry out what\nthe Whigs themselves have promised to do, but have abandoned?\u201d\n\nBut the Massachusetts Whig State Convention at that time passed the\nmost pointed and emphatic resolution, affirming anew what they avowed\nthemselves to have affirmed and re\u00e4ffirmed so often before, on the\nsubject of slavery. I reposed trust in their honesty; I believed in\ntheir veracity; and, as a consequence of my faith, I voted the entire\nWhig state ticket. Having read their last address and resolutions, I\nmust now say, that if they desire any more votes of mine, they must\nrevive my faith by some new evidence of their good works.\n\nLet me advert to a few of the more salient points in that address. It\nlabors to sustain a charge of coalition against the Free Soil party.\nWell, before I either approve or condemn a \u201ccoalition,\u201d I must know by\nwhom, and for what purpose, it was formed. A coalition, I suppose, like\nother acts, must be right or wrong according to the motive that prompts\nit.\n\nBut it is said the Free Soil party formed an alliance with those\nwho, on some important points, had no sympathy with it. And where is\nthis said? Why, in a land where our revolutionary fathers, fighting\nfor freedom and for a republic, formed an alliance or coalition with\nmonarchical and despotic France, and with monarchical and despotic\nSpain. What were the points of resemblance or unison between the\nAmerican Confederation on the one side, and France or Spain on\nthe other? In government, in policy, in manners, in education, in\nreligion, nothing could have been more different. In what did they\nagree? In hostility to Great Britain alone; but not in a single one of\nthe reasons for that hostility, nor in but one of the objects to be\naccomplished by it,--the humiliation of a haughty and overbearing power.\n\nAt the same time, Great Britain formed coalitions with the North\nAmerican savages, to extinguish the rising dawn of freedom. And in\nthis they have been too faithfully imitated by the old hunkers of\nboth parties;--_imitated_, I say, not only in the object and spirit\nof the coalition, but in the weapons with which the warfare is waged.\nYes, fellow-citizens; for there is an attempt, and that attempt is\nto be followed up, to overwhelm the Free Soil party by obloquy and\ndenunciation. There is to be a cry of \u201cbargain and corruption\u201d to put\ndown the Free Soil party, just as the administration of Mr. John Quincy\nAdams was put down by the same cry. Who now believes any thing about\nthe charge of \u201cbargain and corruption\u201d against Mr. Adams,--except\nthat it was a villanous charge? I believe the same charge against\nthe Free Soil party will have come, twenty years hence, to the same\nresult,--that of conferring honor upon its object, and infamy upon its\nauthors.\n\nBut it is said the Free Soil party have seized the offices and\nemoluments of the state. I was absent last January at the time of the\norganization of the state government; but I have heard that those\nwho were distinctively called Free Soilers received only the office\nof secretary of state, and president of the senate, and two or three\nout of the nine councillors;--all of them nearly or quite without\npatronage. I suppose all their emoluments combined would not equal what\nis received by the Boston postmaster, or the collector of the Boston\nport. Vast \u201cways and means\u201d these for the corruption of the people! The\nwhole of them would not suffice a cabinet officer for a _bonne bouche_\nor a tidbit.\n\nAnd now I suggest a further point. Was there a single Free Soiler who\nreceived an office last winter, on what is called the _division of the\nspoils_, which the people, when they voted for him at the polls, did\nnot desire and mean that he should receive?\n\nNow, I need not say that when men conspire or coalesce for a selfish\npurpose, whether that purpose be office, or emolument, or the profits\nof trade, or the increase of dividends, and especially if they\nsacrifice great principles of public utility, or morality, or religion,\nfor the selfish end, I condemn the deed with my whole heart. So when\nrepresentatives, or agents of any kind, are elected or appointed for\nspecial purposes, and by votes or influences without which they could\nnot have obtained their posts, and then, for their own ambitious\nor mercenary objects, _they_ coalesce to defeat the will of their\nconstituents, any severity of language, in holding up their conduct\nto reprobation, may be used with my full consent. Precisely of this\nnature was the coalition between Mr. Webster and General Cass, to carry\nthrough the compromise measures and the Fugitive Slave bill. Both\nwere agents, both betrayed and violated the will of their principals.\nCould Mr. Eliot, of Boston, have been elected to Congress, had he\navowed his intention to vote for the Fugitive Slave bill? Every body\nknows he could not. Yet he coalesced with the secessionists, Messrs.\nClingman and Venable, of North Carolina, and with the whole South\nCarolina disunion delegation, in voting for the Fugitive Slave bill.\nFor Massachusetts, it was said that the passage of that bill would\nraise the price of manufacturing stocks; as, for North Carolina, it\nwould increase the profits of negro-breeding. Here, then, are cases of\ncoalition between persons mutually hostile on other points; and all the\nnorthern members engaged in it, not to carry out, but to defeat, the\nwill of their constituents.\n\nBut the coalition entered into by the Free Soil party in this state,\nlast year, was a coalition planned, formed, sanctioned, and executed,\nas far as they could execute it, by the people themselves, acting in\ntheir original, sovereign capacity, at their primary meetings, and at\nthe ballot box. It was not originated by representatives against the\nwishes of their constituents; but the representatives carried out what\nthe people who chose them willed. What conclusively proves this to be\nso is, that the people who elected these representatives were satisfied\nwith what they did; and, since the work has been done, have shown their\napproval of it in every practicable way.\n\nThere may be wrong motives prompting to the most useful and beneficent\nacts, as good motives sometimes lead to the most pernicious conduct;\nbut I am speaking of these acts of alleged coalition which were\ninstituted by the people themselves, discussed in their hearing at all\nthe primary meetings and all the conventions, and afterwards ratified\nby their votes; and I say, to compare such a coalition with that which\ntook place between Whigs and Democrats in the Senate of the United\nStates, and between unionists and disunionists, slave-breeders and\nmanufacturers, in the House, to carry through the compromise bills\nand the Fugitive Slave bill, seems to me illogical, preposterous, and\nabsurd. But it is said that the bargain in the one case was open and\npublic; and that its terms were reduced to writing, like a bond or\ncovenant between individuals. Is it any the worse for that? Had you not\nas lief have an open bargain that you can see, as secret ones, like the\nTexas stock bargains, that you cannot see? I suppose that coalitions\ncan be _implied_ and _understood_, as well as contracts. Why, have\nyou not seen such an implied coalition carried out in Faneuil Hall\nwithin a year, when the Hon. Benjamin F. Hallett led on his cohorts,\nand the Hon. Rufus Choate advanced his forces to join them; when Mr.\nBenjamin R. Curtis joined hands with Mr. David Henshaw, who was present\nby letter, if not in person,--honorable men all,--and formed one of\nthe most loving and harmonious coalitions out of as heterogeneous and\nrepulsive elements as ever chaos jumbled together,--a coalition not to\nlift the bleeding form of liberty up, but to crush it down.\n\nThe coalition entered into by the Free Soilers certainly did one thing\nwhich would atone for many errors. They elected Mr. Charles Sumner\nto the Senate of the United States. And I cannot believe there is a\nman to be found in any party so shameless and depraved as to charge\nMr. Sumner with any dishonorable coalescing, or with being tainted,\nin a hair of his head or in a filament of his garments, with \u201cbargain\nand corruption.\u201d Mr. Sumner was not elected on any principle of\navailability, but on the principle of \u201c_Detur digniori_,\u201d--\u201cLet it be\ngiven to the most worthy.\u201d His lofty pedestal is too firm to be shaken\nby any such accusation. His character is not to be affected by any\noffice which he shall hold, but only by what _he does_, whether in\noffice or out of it.\n\nWhile defending, in this way, the principle of coalitions, when formed\nby the people themselves, no one, of course, could be understood as\npledging himself to vote for all their measures. This would be the old\nand wicked partisan principle of standing by our party, right or wrong.\nI am also free to say that there is, in my opinion, a _prima facie_\nobjection against coalitions; but I cannot doubt the existence of cases\nwhere they are not only justifiable, but laudable. I lay down this\ngreat principle: I think the Free Soil party should act at any time,\non any point, with any party through whom they can help the cause of\nfreedom.\n\nThe Whig address remarks as follows: \u201cWe are now able to say, after\nthe experience of nearly a twelvemonth, that it, [the administration,]\nhas fully earned the confidence which we awarded to it in advance.\n_The great interests of the country have been faithfully cared for!_\u201d\nI ask, What great interests of the country have been faithfully cared\nfor? What interest of the Whig party, assuming to be the country, has\nbeen faithfully cared for? Have we got a tariff? Mr. Webster dissipated\nall chance of that for the present, and I fear for years to come,\nwhen he taught the south to threaten and prevail. Have we any river\nand harbor appropriations? Alas! northern capital and northern lives\nstill go to the bottom on our western waters. Is the financial policy\nof the country changed? Let the condition of the money market for the\nlast few months, and also its prospective condition, grinding the\nmiddle classes of tradesmen and manufacturers as between the upper\nand nether millstone, answer this question. A reform in all these\nparticulars would doubtless have been affected but for Mr. Webster\u2019s\napostasy; but where are these reforms now? If they exist at all, they\nexist in some indefinite future. What interest of the country, then,\nhas been faithfully cared for or secured? Not one! Not one! The most\nprominent member of the administration has been engaged in carrying\nout the policy of the south,--in visiting southern cities to pander to\nthe slave power, and northern cities to stifle the spirit of freedom.\nTwo armed expeditions have been fitted out in our own ports against\nthe territory of a government with which we are at peace, resulting\nin the loss of hundreds of lives, while the President and his first\nsecretary have been spending their time gayly at watering-places. When\nsome of our citizens, a few years ago, afforded some assistance to the\n\u201cLiberals\u201d of Canada, in favor of a movement which Canadians themselves\nhad already set on foot, the government promptly and energetically\ninterfered. But Canada and Cuba are wider apart _politically_ than they\nare _geographically_. Slavery makes the difference between them.\n\nThe only valorous exploit of this administration was the issuing of\na proclamation, when one southern slave, from among three millions,\nescaped from the house of bondage, and found that protection under the\nBritish ensign which was denied to him by the American flag, and that\nright to a trial by jury under a monarchy which was denied to him by a\nrepublic. Or, if any other act should be added to the preceding, it was\nthe President\u2019s letter to Dr. Collins, of Georgia, offering the use of\nthe army and navy of the United States to catch one poor white woman,\nEllen Crafts, and her husband, and return them to bondage.\n\nIn another passage of the Whig address all disguise is cast off, and it\nis openly declared, that the giving of an extra slave state to Texas,\nwith territory enough for half a dozen more as large as Massachusetts,\nand ten millions of dollars in addition to that, and the statutory\npermission that slavery may go into New Mexico and Utah, and even\nthat abhorred enactment, the Fugitive Slave law, are only \u201cfactitious\nand imaginary\u201d grounds of complaint. The Free Soil party is condemned\nbecause it takes any notice of such \u201cfactitious and imaginary\u201d causes.\nA three-penny tax on tea was a real grievance,--one fit to be resisted\nunto blood, to be historically recorded, and to which we are not\nashamed to refer when descanting upon the honor of our fathers. But\nsuch largesses to slavery as kings could not afford to give, and the\nrobbery of an entire race of all its rights,--yes, and with authority,\ntoo, to make us help commit the robbery,--these are \u201cfactitious and\nimaginary\u201d causes of dissatisfaction. Men of Massachusetts! moral and\nreligious men! lovers of freedom and of your country, were you prepared\nfor this?\n\nBut the address goes still further. It goes into an elaborate\npalliation of the Fugitive Slave law itself. It first attempts to shift\nthe question by asking the Free Soilers what they would do with regard\nto the constitutional provision respecting escaped slaves. The views of\nthe Free Soil party on this point, and their purpose of fidelity to the\nconstitution, have been set forth a hundred times. In further answer,\ntherefore, to this question, I trust it is only necessary to remark,\nthat the Free Soil party _will do what they say_, and not pass ten long\nyears in asserting, and protesting, and resolving, and calling Earth\nand Heaven to witness their devotion to Freedom, and then disavow all\nthey had ever avowed, and forswear their oaths.\n\nLet me read to you the disparaging and contemptuous remark of the\naddress on that great palladium of human liberty, the trial by jury.\n\u201cIs nothing meant,\u201d it gravely asks, \u201cbut the substitution of the\nverdict of a jury for the decision of a judge.\u201d Nothing but--_what_?\n\u201cThe verdict of a jury for the decision of a judge,\u201d that is, of a\ncommissioner! And are the persons who prepared that address so nearly\nstone blind as not to recognize the infinite difference between the\nverdict of a jury and the decisions of such commissioners as Messrs.\nIngraham, Smith, and Nelson? Ingraham, of Philadelphia, sent a man\ninto bondage whom the alleged claimant refused to receive as soon\nas he saw him, knowing that all his family, and all his slaves, and\nall his neighbors would see that he had no right to him. Smith, of\nBuffalo, gave a certificate to carry Daniel into slavery, when not a\nsingle item, or particle, or tittle of legal and admissible evidence\nwas before him as proof, as was afterwards shown by Judge Conkling,\nof the United States court. Nelson, of New York, forced the facts in\nBolding\u2019s case to bring them within the law which he himself had laid\ndown, as much as ever a fraudulent book-keeper forced balances to cover\nan embezzlement. Sims, instead of having common-law notice and time to\nsend for evidence, was seized at night on a false and trumped-up charge\nof stealing. Daniel was knocked down by the claimant\u2019s agent with a\nclub, tumbled and tortured upon a hot stove, his scalp torn open, and\nthen compelled to go to trial, while, as described by an eye witness,\n\u201che sat dozing, unable to talk with his counsel, with the blood slowly\noozing out of his mouth and nostrils.\u201d Hamlet, Long, and Bolding\nwere sprung upon as remorselessly as a tiger springs upon a lamb,\nand carried to trial without being allowed to go to their respective\nhomes to bid farewell to their families. An alleged slave has lately\nbeen taken from Pennsylvania who was seized in the night, tried in the\nnight, and carried away on the same night, without any opportunity\nfor preparation, for counsel, or for defence. The kidnapper, Alberti,\nnow lies in a Pennsylvania prison for carrying away a mother and her\nchild; but the mother and the child are now groaning under the lash of\na southern taskmaster. Had this villain, Alberti, and his accomplices\nbeen detected while the victims were still in their hands, I suppose\nhe would have carried them before Mr. Commissioner Ingraham, and had\nthe wrong _legally_ rectified,--the blackness of the crime _judicially_\nwashed white. These are but specimens of what the Fugitive Slave law\nhas already done, before the public mind has become familiarized\nwith its brutalities, and while there is yet some sensibility to the\nclaims of justice and mercy left among us. And yet the writer of this\naddress and the committee that offered it, ask us whether all we mean\nis the substitution of the verdict of a jury for the decision of a\ncommissioner. I answer, that this difference which they so be-little\nand disparage will often be all the difference between freedom and\nbondage, between life and death, between honor and infamy, between\nhappiness and perdition.\n\nAnd now, fellow-citizens, if, in addition to having our northern\nfreemen kidnapped in southern ports, and imprisoned and sold into\nbondage; if, in addition to fighting for foreign territory to be added\nto the domain of slavery; if, in addition to being taxed, in sums of\nmillions and tens of millions, to fortify the slave power;--if, in\naddition to all this, we are to be deprived and defrauded of that\nnoble and venerable institution, the trial by jury,--an institution\nsanctified by the blood of martyrs, hallowed by the prayers of sainted\npatriots, held sacred by all good men, and taught to their children\nlike the living oracles of God;--if this attempt is to be made, as the\nlate Whig address foreshadows,--then I say, a more flagrant case of\napostasy is nowhere to be found on the records of any history, sacred\nor profane, since Satan broke into paradise and _Websterized_ our first\nparents.\n\nI shall advert to but one more point in the address. It speaks of the\n\u201cpitiable humbug of ballot envelopes.\u201d Now, gentlemen, I may be all\nwrong on this subject. My instincts, reason, judgment, conscience, may\nall mislead; but from the first time, now years ago, when I heard this\nsubject broached, my instincts, reason, judgment, conscience, have\nall been in its favor. Why, fellow-citizens, the ballot is worse than\nuseless, if it be not FREE! Better be debarred from the privilege of\nvoting at all, than to be mocked with the form, while cheated of the\nsubstance. A southern slave stands higher, politically, than a northern\nlaborer, if the latter must vote as his employer dictates. It may be\nvery well for an opulent man, one of vast fortune, who is dependent\non nobody, and so cares for nobody, who goes quarterly and takes his\nthousands of dollars for rents or dividends; it may be very well for\nhim to laugh at the secret ballot, and call it a \u201chumbug;\u201d but let\nus look at the other end of the scale. Let us look in the thousands\nof day-laborers, of workmen on corporation grounds, of dependent\nclerks, of subordinates at custom-houses and other public offices, and\nso forth, who have no capital but their industry, no resources but\ntheir daily earnings, who have an aged mother or dependent sisters to\nsupport, or a family of children to be fed, clothed, and educated;\nwho may be turned out even of the humble tenements where they live,\nas winter is coming on; who may be refused promotion or advancement\nin their work and in their wages; and in regard to some of whom the\nwolf of hunger sits growling at the door; let us look at these, I\nsay, and then answer the question, whether they ought not to be\nprotected in voting according to their judgment and conscience. The\nliberty of voting includes all other liberties. The man of independent\ncircumstances has this liberty; and no man\u2019s circumstances, not even\nthe poorest and the humblest, should be so dependent as to take it away.\n\nI do not desire this secret ballot law for myself. I like to lay my\nballot in the box, face upwards, looking heavenward; looking the Paul\nPrys who hover round, full in the eye; but I am willing and glad to put\nthat ballot in an envelope, in order to protect my poor neighbor, the\nbread of whose mouth, the shelter of whose family, and the education of\nwhose children, may depend upon the vote he gives. Ay, I go further.\nI should think that any high-minded man, any man having proper\nsensibilities respecting his relations to his social inferiors, would\nrejoice in such a law as this; because it would take away all ground of\naccusation or imputation that he would do so unrighteous and dastardly\na deed as to invade a dependant\u2019s right of voting as it might seem to\nhim good.\n\nGentlemen, it is said, in one of the Springfield resolutions, that\nthe last legislature cost the state an extra fifty thousand dollars.\nWhether it did or not is not of any very vast importance; though I\nconfess I have a great respect for Poor Richard\u2019s economy, and would\nsave all that I could. But does not the very mention of this sum of\nfifty thousand remind one of another sum, almost precisely the same,\nwhich was spent last year on one of Mr. Sumner\u2019s predecessors in the\nsenatorial office? And if it cost fifty thousand dollars for a ticket\nto pass Mr. Webster out of the Senate, it was surely worth as much for\na ticket to pass Mr. Sumner in.\n\nGentlemen, I close by remarking that it is in view of these great\nquestions of human freedom,--in view of the solemn responsibility in\nwhich we stand to our country and to posterity, that we have assembled\nhere to-day. May this meeting prove to be a concentration of rays of\nscattered light and wisdom, meeting and burning in a focus, and then\nsending back illumination and cheering to all the parts of our beloved\ncommonwealth. If, in my humble way, I can do any thing to promote so\nglorious an object, my services are at your disposal.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[25] Seneca. [The passage is quoted in the Dedication, pp. ix., x.]\n\n\n\n\n                          Transcriber\u2019s Notes\n\nPage 24: \u201cchaper 41,\u201d changed to \u201cchapter 41,\u201d\n\nPage 107: \u201cFrom the speeeh\u201d changed to \u201cFrom the speech\u201d\n\nPage 161: \u201cHebpurn et al\u201d changed to \u201cHepburn et al\u201d\n\nPage 189: \u201cSierra Neveda\u201d changed to \u201cSierra Nevada\u201d\n\nPage 190: \u201cnot only guranties\u201d changed to \u201cnot only guarantees\u201d\n\nPage 239: \u201c36\u00b4 30\u00b0\u201d changed to \u201c36\u00b0 30\u00b4\u201d\n\nPage 265: \u201cleger book\u201d changed to \u201cledger book\u201d\n\nPage 287: \u201csynonymes given\u201d changed to \u201csynonyms given\u201d\n\nPage 315: \u201cwordly affairs,\u201d changed to \u201cworldly affairs,\u201d\n\nPage 321: \u201ctravel though any part\u201d changed to \u201ctravel through any part\u201d\n\nPage 333: \u201creverened and learned\u201d changed to \u201crevered and learned\u201d\n\nPage 336: \u201cbe villified\u201d changed to \u201cbe vilified\u201d\n\nPage 376: \u201cof New Hamphire\u201d changed to \u201cof New Hampshire\u201d\n\nPage 414: \u201cthe apellants\u201d changed to \u201cthe appellants\u201d\n\nPage 444: \u201cas orginally\u201d changed to \u201cas originally\u201d\n\nPage 464: \u201cwordly advantages\u201d changed to \u201cworldly advantages\u201d","title":"Slavery: letters and speeches","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":192926}