Freedom v. Slavery by John Hutchins
Author: Unknown
Date: 0101-01-01T00:00:00+00:00

Making of America Books Basic | Boolean | Proximity |

Bibliographic | Search History

UMDL Texts home U of M login View bookbag
your bookbag has 0 items

Home Search BrowseHelp

list of all pages | add to bookbag

Title:Freedom v. Slavery. Speech of John Hutchins, of Ohio.

Delivered in the U. S. House of representatives, May 2, 1860.

Author:Hutchins, John, 1812-1891.

Availability:These pages may freely searched and displayed.

Permission must be received for subsequent distribution in print or electronically. Please contact umdl-info@umich.edu for more information.

Print Source:Freedom v. Slavery. Speech of John Hutchins, of Ohio.

Delivered in the U. S. House of representatives, May 2, 1860.

Hutchins, John, 1812-1891.

7, [1] p. 22 cm.

[Washington,

1860]

Page 1 view page image

F. L? A ( -v SPEECH JOHN HUITCHINS, OF OHIO. lielivered in th,o U. S.

House of Representativee, May 2, 180O. 0 right or which is wrong. I propose therefore, briefly to examine that question, and address myself to that inquiry. ‘The advocates of slavery upon this floor have frankly and ably presented the question for our consideration; and I propose to meet it. If the s ys tem of free labor, as i t exists in the free States of this Union, is wrong, we ouaht, as honest men, to abandon it, and adopt that higher type of civiktioa as it is claimed, which exists in the slave rStat es. If the system of slave lsbor, as it exists in the slave States, is right, we ought, under the Constitution of the United States, to extend to it that protection which its advocates claim for it. I maintain thatslavery, as it exists in the slaveholding States, is wrong in every aspect in which it can be viewed; wron~ to the 1la~ve wrong to the slaveholder; an injury to the material, industrial, political, social, educational, mora, and religious prosperity of any people who encourage or tolerate it; and, like all other sins which afflict society, the sum total of its results is evil, atnd only evil. Slavery originated in motives of selfishness, of avarice, and of ambition; in an age when, by the teachings of those motives, might was a synonym for right-when the weak and unfortunate, and the conquered, had no rights which the strong were bound to respect. It is sustained at the pres. ent day, in and out of this Hall, by the same logic, and by the same motives. When the colonists of this country were ex. periencing the oppressive effects of the tyrannical measures of the Parliament and King of England, tending to reduce them to political slavery, they naturally began to irquire into the inherent rights of man, as a subject of civil government; and that inquiry, with the discussion incident to it, in the light of the learning which the progress of society up to that time had developed, resulted in the adoption of “a platformh” o f pliatical principles in ar. mony with the-Divine l awr which was incorpo. -,, Mr. CHArR-M~: When the distinguished Snator from NewYork, [WILLAM EH. SEWAD,] in his Rochester speech in 1858, defined the antagonism between free and slave labor to be an irrepressible conflict, he announced a truth inherent in the two systems, and coeval with slavery. The same idea has been frequently expressed in different forms by the opponents and advocates of slavery, in their discussions of the subject. If Mr. SEWAR.D, in the statement of this truth, is entitled to the claim of originality, it is in the use of words expressive of the idea. He has been represented as originating the antagonism, instead of defining it. He in apt words clearly defined what is patent to a student of history and to a careful observer of passing events, namely: that there is an irreconcilable antagonism between freedom and slavery. It is being demonstrated, if it n ever were before, by the logic of events now transpiring. The words freedom and slavery are expressive of opposite ideas; and wherever the two systems come in contact, there must necessarily be conflict and antagonism. A line of policy which would encourage free labor would discourage slave labor; hence the conflict as to measures in the legislation of Congress, affecting the two systems of labor. When, in fixing a tariff of duties upon imports, with a view to make the annual revenues of the Government equal its annual expenditures, a dis-, crimination is made upon such articles as free labor produces, so as to afford incidental pro  tection, then we find the advocates of free labor and the advocates of slave labor in antagonism on this floor. When it is proposed to encourage free labor by inviting it to occupy and improve our unoccupied public domain, by the passage of a homestead law, then we encounter the same antagonism. And so it is with every measure proposed, having the leart relation to either system of labor. The establishment of the fact of a conflict between freedom and slavery does not, as a logical sequence, determine which is V. SAV IFRIEEDO , C,-, t I -‘ ,.1, or 11 -4

Page 2 view page image

2 rated into the Dociaration of Indepenidence. The language is familiar to all, and I will not quote it. It is a clear and concise statement of the natural equality of all nmen to protection from Government, and to the enjoyment of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” It is erroneously asserted and unfairly con tended that the broad application, which the opponents of slavery make of this language, secures to all classes and conditions of people equality of sooial relations and of political rights. Social relations are prompted by natu ral affinities, and it is not the appropriate ob ject of Government to interfere with.

them. Political rights emanate from Government, and the extent which they are to be enjoyed by, and applied to, particular persons, is ad dlressed to the sound discretion of the law making power. Natural rights emanate from the Creator, and Government cannot therefore improperly interfere with them; and this is the sense in which the Declaration of Independ ence declares all men created equal. We do not deny to women their equality with men as to natural rights because we do not allow them the civil right to vote; and the same re mark will apply to minors and unnaturalized foreigners. This statement, in the Declara tion, of the natural equality of men, was the platform upon which the Revolution was fought. Its inspiring sentiments were its war-. cry. This platform determines the wrongful ness of chattel slavery as an institution every where, for it cannot exist without a destruction of those natural rights it declares to be inalien able. This sentiment, anterior to July, 1776, pervaded the discussions of the colonies, grow ing out of their relations to the mother coun try, and they clearly saw that chattel slavery was inconsistent with it. The colonies found it here in violation of that just and cardinal mnaxim of civil government, which, in 1776, they so truthfully, clearly, and boldly, announced to the world. So sensible was Mr. Jefferson of this, that in his original draft of the Declara tion, he inserted as one of the causes of complaint against the King of Great Britain, that he had interposed his veto power to prevent the colonies from suppressing by legislation “this execrable commerce ” in human beings. This was his language: ‘-‘He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant ‘
people who never offended him, captivating ‘and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to in cur miserable de a th’ in their transporta tion thi th er. This piratical ‘warfare, the opprobrium of infidel Powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great ‘Britain. Determined to keep a market where ‘men should be bought and sold, he has at length prostituted his negative for suppresst ing any legislative attempt to prohibit and restrain this execrable commerce.: I need not further quote from the writings of the prominent’men-Xwho inaugurated and .Bust~ied forward the Revolution, to show that this seltibt aderpt was general. It is conced ed by intelligent men from the South. I assert, without the fear of successful contradiction from an y s ource, t h a t th e p reponderance of public sentiment in a majo rity of the States at the close of the Revolution, and for a long time afterwards, was against the policy and against the right fulness o f cha ttel slave ry, a s it then existed in those State s. I assert further, as the corollary of that s ent iment, that it was the general expectation th at slavery would gradually disappear from all the States, through the instrumentality of our republican :form of governml ent, and through the hirman tarian influence of our Christian civilization. The f ramers of the Const itution excluded from it th e word slavery, as a hateful term, and’ it’ was left out, as Mr. Madison said, because they did not wish to recognise the rightfulness of property in man. I have no doubt they had in view the future state of the country; when slavery should be abolished in all of the States, and ad apted the Constitution to that state of things. It has been conce ded by Southern men, in the House and in the Sen ate, this session, that the leading men of the slave States, before and after the adoption of the Constitution, uttered anti-slavery senti ments; but it is contended that they really were not opposed to slavery per se-that it was sentimentalism merely, an abstraction, or spec ulation, and not intended as a condemnation of the system. They clearly expressed themselves as opposed to:it per se; and if they did not mean what they said, then they added to the practice of the wrong of slavery the hypocrisy of double dealing. I do not charge them with that, for they were honest men. The gentleman from Alabama, [Mr. CtRRY,] in his able speech, delivered here on the 14th day of March last, upon this point, said: ‘ “Scarce a speech has been made or an es’ say written, for ten years, against slavery, in ‘ which the opinions of the early fathers of the ‘Republic are not introduced. These, how’ ever, were but mere speculations, and were ‘not engrafted upon the organic law; and ‘actual results are a safer standard by which ‘to measure abstract principles. Besides, ‘ times have changed since this Government ‘was first inaugurated as an experimnent, not ‘ yet satisfactorily tested.

Then there were but ‘ little over half a million slaves, and scarce a ‘
pound of raw cotton exported. ” African slavery is now a great fact a po’litical, social, industrial, humanitarian fact. ‘ Its chief product is king, and freights North ern vessels, drives Northern machinery, feeds ‘Northern laborers, and clothes the entire pop’ ulation. Northern, no less than Southern c ap~ital and labor are dependlent} in great de’ gree, upon it, and these results were wholly ‘ unanticipated by the good men who0 are so ‘ industriously paraded as clouds of witnesses ‘ against the institution. ” Slavery has altered, and men’s opinions | have altered.”

Senator Mez,sons of Virginia, in a debate upon I I

Page 3 view page image

3 the President’s message, at this session, in the Senate, said: “1 The opinion once entertained, certainly in ‘ mnm y ow n State, by able and distinguished men ‘and patriots, that the condition of African slavery was one more to be deplored than to be ifo-stered, has undergone a change, and that the ‘ uniform-1I might almost say universal-senti’ment in my own State upon the subject of African bondage, is that it is a blessing to ‘
both races, one to be encouraged, cherished, and fostered; and to that extent, the opinion of Virginia is different from the opinion en’tertained by those distinguished men who have gone; but who, we believe-best know’

ing their sentiments-if they lived at this day, ‘would concur with us.

That is the present ‘ opinion.” In impressive contrast with this sentiment, which, Senator MAsoN says, is “the presen t opinion” of Virginia statesmen, I refer to the opinion of one of her earlier but not less distinguished statesmen, George Mason, the grandfather of the present Senator, and a member of the Convention which framed the Constitution of the United States: ” Slavery discoura ges arts and manufactures. ‘The poor despise labor w hen p erform ed by ‘ slaves. T hey pr even t th e immig ration of w h i tes, wh o really enrich and strengtshen a country. They produc e the mo st pernicious ‘ effects on manners. Every muaster of slaves ‘ is bor n a petty tyrant. They bring the judg sment of H eave n on a country.”’ Senator HUNTER, of Virginia, in, the same debate, admitted the same fact as t o t he state of public opinion in the earlier days of the Re public, and that public opinion in the South had undergone a change. Honor able Alexan der H. S tephens, of Geo rgia, one of the; ablest men of the S outh, in a speech deliver ed to his con stitu ents a fter his return from the last Con gress, admitted the same fact. The Republican party, then, has the opinion of the father s of th e Republic on its side, that slavery is an evil ” m or e to be dep lored than to be fostered;” but the gentleman from Ala bama says, “these were but mere speculation s ‘ and were Dot engrafted upon the organic laws; and actual re sults are a safer standard by ‘which to measure abstract principles.”

The Congress of the Confederation gave practical effect to its sentiment of hostility.to slavery, by prohibi ting it in all the terratrto the Congre ss then had jurisdiction over, by the ordinance of 1787. T he first session of the First Congress, in order that the provisions of the ordinance might codinute, and have full effect, adopted it, and enacted certain provisions to adapt it to the Constitution of the United States.

These ” were actual results engrafted upon ” the legislation of the country. Thesfathers of the Republic, before and after the adoption of the Constitution, by opinion and actioZn, treated slavery as contraband wherever they could, without violation of existing relations and ar rangements. At the secondd session of the First Congress, an act was passed for the government of the territory of the United States south of the Ohio river. This act was passed Mlay 26, 1790, and extended over this territory the ordinance of 1787, “except so far as is otherwise provided, in the conditions expressed in an act of Congress” of that session, “accepting a cession of the claims of the State of North Caroolina to that territory.” The conditions of that act, so far as the same related to slaves, were as follows: ” Provided, always, That no regulations made, ‘or to be made, by Congress, shall tend to emancipate slaves.” I refer to these acts for two purposes: first, to show that Congress, in extending over this Southern territory the ordinance of 1787, except the anti-slavery proviso, would probably have extended the entire ordinance, had it niot been for the proviso in the act of cession of North Carolina; and, second, t o show that the Legislature of North Carolina supposed Congress had the power, under the Constitution, to prohibit slavery in the Territory. Th is act o f cession was passed in December, 1790. The first session of-the First Congress commenced MTarch 4, 1789; so that the Constit ution was in full force when this act of cession was passed and the State of North Carolina had but re cently ratified it, and her statesmen who com posed her Legislature in 1790 were presumed to know something about the provisions of the Con stitution; a nd i f the y had not supposed that Congress possessed the power to abolish slavery in a Territory, they would not have in serted this proviso. Following up the abstractions of the fathers, that slavery was an evil, ” more to be deplored than to be fostered,” and to show, by ” actual results,” that they intended to prohibit and re strict it wherever they legally could, I refer to the act of Mlarch 22, 1794. The object of this law wa,’- to prohibit any citizen or resident ‘of the United States from equipping vessel” ‘ within the United States, carrying on trade or traffic in slaves to any foreign country.” (1 Wash. C. C. R., 522.) The next act to the same purport was passed May 10, 1800. This act extends the prohibitions of the act of 1794 to citizens of the United States in any mau~:,::r concerned in~this kind-of traffic, either by per sonal service on board of American or, foreign vessels, wherever equipped, or to the owners of such vessels, citizens of the United States. Next in the order of time was the act of Feb ruary 28, 1803. The object of this act was to prohibit the importation of negroes, mulattoes, or other persons of color, into any State which by law had prohibited or should prohibit the admission or importation of such persons of color. The object of Congress seemed to be to aid the States in getting rid of the evil of sla very. The next action of Congress bearing upon the subject was -the act providing for-the tem-t porary government of the Louisiana Territory, ceded by France to the United States, passed: March 26, 1804. I infinte special examination of the tenth section of this act. The firstt clause I I I I I

Page 4 view page image

4 of this section prohibits the importation or bringing into the Territory, from any port or place within the limits of the United States, any slaves. The second clause prohibits the importation or bringing into the Territory, from any port or place within the limits of the United States, any slaves which shall have been imported since the 1st of May, 1798, into any port or place within the United States, or which may hereafter be so imported. The third clause prohibits the introduction of slaves into the Ter ritory, except by a citizen removing into the Territory for actual settlement, and being, at the time of removal, the bonafide owner of the slaves. This section was an unmistakable re striction to the introduction of slavery into that Territory. It had respect to existing relations, and did not interfere with citizens in the Ter ritory bonafide owning slaves, and citizens re moving therein bna-afide owning slaves. The treaty stipulations with France compelled Con gress to respect the right of property of the cit. izens of the T’erritory; and as slaves existed there by the laws of France, to that extent slavery was permitted there by Congress, and in other respects it was discouraged. Congress could not, prior to the year 1808, prohibit the migration or importation of such persons as any of the States, existing at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, should think proper to admit; but, by a reference to the acts above stated, it will be seen that it prohibited the traffic in slaves, foreign and domestic, wherever it constitutionally could, thus stigmatizing sla. very as an evil to be discouraged and prohibited. On the 2d day of March, 1807, Congress passed the act to prohibit the foreign slave trade as to all the States, after the year 1808, the first moment they could so prohibit it. April 20, 1818, Congress amended this law, making its provisions more effectual; and in 1819, a more stringent law was passed. On the 15th of March, 1820, the last act on the subject of the slave trade was passed, making it piracy, and punishing a conviction of being engaged in it with death. These acts, severally and jointly, show that the early fathers of the Republic regarded slavery as an evil and a crime, and, acting upon that conviction, they were eager to punish it as a crime, where they supposed they had a right to do so. The advocates of slavery are not satisfied with the opinions and practices of the fathers; and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr.

CUR itY] adopts the saying, ” that it is necessary for each ‘generation to discuss anew the great problems of human speculation, which continually come ‘back, after certain intervals, for re-examina’tion.” Suppose we accept this philosophy, and meet the question on its merits, untrammelled by the opinions and teachings of the fathers; if they were wrong in opinion or action, we are not bound to follow them. They were honest men, but they may have made mistakes. From our stand-point, it would seem to me that it would have been better if a provision had been inserted in the Constitution for the gradual abolition of slavery in all the States;~ and I think~ had the framers of the Constitution foreseen what we now see, they would have so provided. The w ords of Pitt, on the East India bill, quoted a pproving ly by the gentleman from Alabama, were wise: “Good principles might sleep, but bad ones never. It is the curse of society, that when a ‘bad principle is once established, bad men will always be found to give it its full effect.” The spread and increase of slavery in this country, against the wish and against the ex pectation of the early fathers of the Republic, verify the truth of the remark. Now, Mr.

Chairman, to the question, were our fathers wrong, has the sentiment of Chris tendom been wrong, and is the Republican party wrong, in regarding slavery as an evil to be deplored and a crime to be prohibited? I cannot take time to define slavery, except that it reduces persons to chattels to all intents, purposes, and constructions whatever; ignores their rights to family, wife, or children, except for the interest of others, and does not recog nise the marriage relation among slaves. There are no laws in slave States regulating or legal izing such relation among slaves. I under stood the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. SiMMs] to say, in the debate on the polygamy bill, he did not admit the legality of any such relation among colored people. This is, neces sarily, the law of chattel slavery; for the legal ization of that relation interferes with the property character of slaves, obstructs their unlimited transfer and sale, and concedes to the slave rights inconsistent with the rights of the master. Now, to undertake to prove that such an entire disregard, upon any pretext, of the rights of any class in society is right, is like arguing that two and two are four, or undertaking to demonstrate a self-evident proposition. I understood the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. LAtMAR] to admit, in his learned argument in defence of slavery, that the enslavement of Anglo-Saxons would be wrong, for they are entitled to freedom because they are capable of governing themselves. But Africans are incapable of self government, and therefore a superior race may rightfully enslave them. It is not within the range of what I propose to say to reply to tbis diabolism. My friend, Mr. LovEJoY, made some remarks upon that, which are worthy of consideration. But I would like to ask the learned gentleman a question upon his governmental philosophy. It is an admitted fact that there is in the slave States ” a visible admixture ” of Anglo-Saxon with African blood, and quite likely there is as much Anglo-Saxon as African blood enslaved there. What must be the proportion of admix. ture to mnake slavery right? The advocates of slavery discard theories} speculations, and abstractions; they prefer actual results. I am-glad of an opportunity to test slavery by the standard which its advocates set up. Let slavery and freedom be judged by their fruits. I will institute a comparison we~
twreen freedom and slavery from statistics from official documents about which there is no dispute. The statistics which I shall present .1 I c

Page 5 view page image

ment of the American people of all sectfo that it is owing solely to the cause that ginia, against the opinion of her early star men, has encouraged and fostered the curse human slavery; while New York, in acco ance with that opinion, and in the spirit of Revolution, has abolished it.

For the purpose of showing that, in comps son withi freedom, slavery affects injuriously t prosperity of a State, I will institute a comp~ son between fourteen free States and fourte slave States, namely: free States-Connectic Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachuse Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, N York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, a Vermont; slave States-Alabama, Arkans Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Ma land, Missouri, Mississt.ppi, North Caroli South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and ~ ginia. These free States have au area 402,693
square miles, and the slave St have 849,328. In soil, climate, and natural advantag these fourteen slave States are equal to fourteen free States named, and I think, some respects, better. In 1850, the population of -the free Sta named was 13,036,934; and-f the slave Sta 9,521,237. The value of real estate in the free Sts was $2,408,30-9987; in the slave Sta $1

416,102,421. The moral, socal, and e cational condition of the same States comp as follows: value of churches in the X States, $66,972,525; in the slave Sta $21,234,226. Public schools in the free Sta 61,008, with 2,711,035 pupils; public schc in the slave States, 18,313, with 572,891
pu~ The annual income of public schools in free States, $6,663,603; in the slave Sta $2,676,173. The white population at the A8 period was: in the free States, 12,842,279 the slave States, 6,113,308. The numbel scholars in collees, academies, and pu schools, was: In the free States, $2,878,2
and in the slave States only 687,891.’ number of free white persons, over the age twenty-one, at this period, who could not I or write, was: in the free States, 411,036 the slave States, 508,-546. The Postmaster General’s report of year, to which I have before referred, sh the following facts: total annual transports of mails in these free States, 38,773,154 m at an annual cost of $3,127,060; in tl slave States, 37,017,511, at an annual cos $4,745,329-being carried in the free St 1,765,643 miles further, at a cost of $1,618 less than ill the slave States. The postal expenditures for the 8 period were as follows: in the free St~ $6,513,169.68; ail in the slave St: $5,942,092.65; and receipts as follows: the free States, $5,052,958.14; in the s :States, $1,908,037.98 the expenditures in ‘
slave States being $428,932.97 more tha! *the free States, and the receipts -$3,144i92 are from the Compendiulm of the Census of 1850, by J.

D. B. De Bow, and from the Postmaster General’s report accompanying the President’s annual message, made at the commencement of this Congress.

These statistics will show the “actual results” of freedom and slavery, respectively, upon the prosperity of the States; their material growth, their educational and moral condition. I challenge gentlemen to show a single fact incorrectly taken from the documents alluded to. I will first take the States of New York and Virginia. The former adopted the “
theories and abstractions” of the “able and distinguished men and patriots” of Virginia, and treated slavery, as they regarded it,” more to be deplored than to be fostered,” and consequently got rid of it; while the latter repudiated these teachings, and regarded African bondage “a blessing to both races; one to be encouraged, cherished, and fostered;”

and, consequently, has continued it to the present time, and now defends it as a wise and beneficent institution; and one of her Representatives [Mr. PaYOe] upon this floor, at this se s. sion, declared it to be “the highest type of civilization.” New York contains an area of 47,000 square miles, and Virginia 61,352 square miles. In soil, climate, and natural advantages, Virginia is equal, if not superior, to New York. At the taking of the first census, 1770, the popula-. tion of these States was as follows: VirgiLia, 748,308; New York, 340,320. In the year 1850 the population was as follows: Virginia,- 1,421,661; New York, 3,097,394. The value of l real estate in those States, in 1850, was:! ia Virginia, $252,105,824; in New York, $564,649,649. The value of personal and real es. tate was: in Virginia, $391,64G,438; in N. York, $1,080,309,2.6. The value of church property was: in Virginia, $2,902,220; in New York,; $21.539,561. Virginia had 2,930 public schools, with 67,353 pupils; New York has 11,580 public schools, with 675,221 pupils. The annual in come of the school fund, in Virginia, wa s $314,625; in New York, $1,472,657. The post office statistics of any country afford good evi dence of its business activity, intelligence, and educational progress. Total annual transport ation of mails for the year ending June 30, 1859, in Virginia, 4,006,725 miles, at an annual cost of $378,872; and in New York, 6,686,488
miles, at an annual cost of $462,806. The Government expended, for the year ending June 30, 1859, for postal service in Virginia, $510,801.03; and received during the same period, $255,075.70; being an excess of ex penditures over receipts of $255,725.33. The Government expended, during the same pe riod, and for the same purpose, in the State of New York, $1,107,886.79, and received $1,553,680.34; being an excess of receipts over expenditures of $445,793.55. Will the Repre sentatives of Virginia explain the cause of the difference between that State and New York upon any other basis than the superiority of free over slave labor? I submit to the judg I- -U G 5 I ,1 *.1

Page 6 view page image

system, the Constitution gives it a legal guaranty. This is mere assumption, and has no foundation in fact. I deny that the Constitution, upon any fair construction, regards slaves as property; but, on the contrary, it treats them as persons; allows them to be counted as a basis of representation. The article relating to fugitives from labor is sometimes referred to as recognising the property character of slaves; but here again they are regarded as persons, and not property. It is admitted that this clause relates to minors and apprentices, as well as slaves; and will any one claim that children and apprentices are treated as property, and are declared to be property? They are, as much as slaves are by this clause. The Constitution: found slavery existing in the States by force of -the law-vs thereof, and there it left it; giving to no department of the General Governmeut direct control over it; and there the Republican party, as a political question, are willing to leave it-It is admitted by alliht least I have not heard it denied-that a State can abolish slavery whenever it may desire to do so; but if the Constitution of the United States recognises slaves as property, how could a State legally abolish slavery?

The Constitution would be superior to the State law; antdas there seems to be no end to the assumptions of slavery,-this may be the next plank to be spiked on to a Democratic platform. According to the gentleman from Alabama, slavery is superior to the Constitution or law,, and not dependent upon either. His position is, “Slavery exists in the State where the ‘owner dwells; exists out of the State - ex  ists in the Territories; exists everywhere, until ‘ it comes within the limits of sovereignty, ‘
which prohibits it.” Slavery, then, according to this new dogma, like our atmosphere, occupies all the unoccupie d space on the globe and fully possesses the att r ibute of ubi quity. The gentleman gives us no authority but his assertion, which I suppose is the result of his re-examination of the question. E: I quote against it the records of the decisions of every court of respectability in Christendom since courts of law have bee represented as holding the scales of justice. I quote against it the opinions of every elementary law wMiter and every ethical writer of note, from the’ dawn of civilization to the present time.: And there I am willing to leave this modern postulate of human bondage, except so far as it forms the predicate of the Territorial policy of the Democratic party.

The Republican party proposes, to the extent of its constitutional power, to limit and restrict slavery, and thereby return to the policy of the fathers, which made freedom the rule and slavery the exception. The dictates of humanity and the policy of enlightened statesmanship alike urge the party forward. We have seen that the controlling element of the unexampled prosperity of our country has been free labor, and we have prospered in-spi~: of slavery, and less. The table which I have prepared will show the result in each State, and a comparison can be instituted, severally or in the aggrefgate, and the result will be about the same. I f the system of slavery, as it exists in the fourteen slave States I have named, is rightbest for the m aste r an d slave, and one to be fost ered and encouraged upon the principles of humanity and true political economy-cWuiy is it that these slave States comp are so unfavorably, severally and in the aggregate, wi th the free States I have named? I think it would be well for some of the mercurial-tempered a dv o cates of slavery upon this floor to answer this question, and others of a similar import which might be put to t hem, relative to the effect of slavery upton the prosperity of the slave States, instead of’ a pp lying toTus, who oppose th e system, allpthe unpax. imentary billingsga te which ta b ad t aste and a worse temper can suggest. The disparity between freedom and, slavery is too uniform to be accidental. I have only given a few of “the actual results” of slavery, which might be-“-iudustriQusiy paraded as Clouds of -wit-‘ iiesses against the institution.” The census statistics now being collected will show more unfavorably against slavery than those of 1850, and every Fryuing decade will widen the gap between freedom and slavery. The reason is too obvious to need arument to show it. Slave labor is fdrqed and mere hand labor, and has none of the motives of reward which stimnulate free labor; and-the consequence is, that slave labor does not originate, and cannot bring to its aid, the number-less labor-saving inventions which lave contributed so much to the industrial enterprise and prosperity of the free States. I refer the gentleman from Alabama []Mr.

CIRRly] to the Patent Office for “clou’s of witnesses against the institution.” Slavery is a war of -one class of the community against the other, and slaveholding States are constantly in a state of War, and are, in fact, under the terrors of martial law. Their means are wasted in patrol surveillance and overseeism. The history of the free and slave States in this country shows to my mind, conclusively, what ethical writersihave contended to be true, that just dealing, for States as well as for individuals, is the best policy in the end. It is time the American people and politicians were begin-ning to understand, what Dr. Davy long since asserted to’ -be true, “that injuring one class for the immediate benefit oftanother, is ulti mately injurious to that other; and that, to se cure prosperity to a community, all-interests ‘ must be consulted.”

Upon this point I therefore conclude, upon a re’exramination of the opinions and speculations of the early fathers of the Republic, and:“from actual results,” they were right in pronouncin~g slavery an evil to be deplored; and to be got rid of as soon as p~racticable. The advocates-of slavery, with a view to shield their system from attack, and to add sanction to it in the popular mind, assume ~ for’it a constitutional recognition; that, as a 6 0 0

Page 7 view page image

7 shall be enacted by the law-making power for the government of the Territories. The slave holding power expect to convert the national domain into slave Territories by the decree of a court, instituted to determine the rights of individuals properly before them. Neither Con gress nor the people of a Territory are here after to have any say or responsibility upon the question of slavery. The slave power is unwilling to trust the popular will, as reflected through Congress or the people of a Territory, who are more immediately interested with this question. Mr. Chairman, it is not the first time we have h eard of an effort of despotism to shield itself behind technicalities and courts for protection; and I point gentlemen to a noted case in Eng lish history, where Charles I contended, uncon stitutionally, that he had a right to exact ship money from English subjects without the au thority of an act of Parliament. He undertook to do it; and the question was submittcd to the Court of Exchequer. John Hampden tested the matter; and he and his lawyers argued it for twelve days with the lawyers of the Crown. The King got his decision from a perhaps venal, at all events a willing, judiciary. The judges stood eight to four-about the same majority as there was in the Dred Scott case. But did he succeed in collecting his ship money? He did not; and an indignant public opinion compelled a reversal of the judgment; and this will be the result of the Dred Scott ruling. The people have the lawful power to reorganize the Judiciary, if necessary,giving all the people a fair representation on the bench; and the inevitable course of events will vacate the seats now filled by the presentjudges, and other men will occupy their places, and then we shall see how long the Democratic party and the slave power will sing hosannas to the judgment of the Supreme Court. The slave powerwill then repudiate it, as the Democratic party did when it decided a bank constitutional. While I admit that a decision made by that c ourt, in a case properly before it, is binding upon the parties, I fully concur with the able argument submitted to his House a few days since, by the gentleman from New York, [Mr. CONKLING,] that it is not binding upon Congress. We are bound to support the Constitutionas we understand it. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. MILLSON] very pleasantly told us yesterday, and I have no doubt sincerely, for his candor and ability command the respect of this side of the House, that the Republicans were about as powerless as if struck with lightning, on account of that decision. If that court is not struck with something worse than light. ning, then I am mistaken in the effect of popular thunder. The free people of this country will not submit to have their Territories converted into slave States, at the dictation of the Supreme Court of the United States. ‘, not in consequencte of it. If the predicates of slavery and the Democratic party be tr ue; if the C onstitution, aprorio vigore, extends slave ry into the Territories, as claimed in the Dred Scott case; if slavery exists in Kansas and othe Territories by the same rule that it does in the slave States, as asserted by President Buchanan, then slavery is the rule and freedom the exception in this Government, and there is nothing to prevent its domination and control everywhere in the Republic. These positions, and the policy which it log ically leads to, would reverse the motivc power of our civilization and progress, and run our institutions rapidly back into the dark ages. The leading politicians of the Democratic party have so far reversed the principles and policy of that party, by incorporating into its platform the increasing demands of slavery, that theyhave run the party as far back as Charleston; and there, if our telegrams are to be relied upon, they have run it off the track, and a break-up is the result. This event, which may be re garded as a calamity by some, by the inscruta ble dispensations of HIim who can make the wrath of man to praise him, may result in saving much of the valuable material of which the Democratic party is composed from further destruction. It will at least teach men the folly of attempting to jump on to the platform of a train having a backward motion. It is diffi cult for us here, among the confused rumors which reach us, to determine what the Charles ton Convention has done or will do. The Democrats North will, I have no doubt, as heretofore, yield substantially to the demands of the slave power; and the party will incor porate into its platform the protection of slave. ry in the Territories. The contest is now mainly between those who maintain the posi. tion that slavery exists in the Territories by virtue of its property character, under the Con stitutio!i, and those who deny the predicate and the conclusion. There is, or has been, a mid dle ground of policy, (for I cannot-discover any principle in it,) of which Senator DOUGLAS is the expounder, if not the originator, which I cannot at this moment better characterize than to call it the Priest and Levite policy; passing by on the other side of slaves in the Territories, and allowing them to perish, as persons or property, as the case may be, among the thieves of Jericho, who may first happen to squat upon the public dom-ain, a not caring whether slavery is voted up or down.” This position, and its artful author and advocate, wilf soon be, if they are not already, politically ground to powder between the controlling forces of the upper mrillstone of freedom and the nether millstone of slavery.1 Mr. Chairman, slavery has sought refuge, as a last hiding place, under the protection of thej Supreme Court; and if the present policy of[
the Democratic party is to prevailI that trilbunal] is hereafter to control and determine what lawsJ i’d, I11 I - I i OW. -‘, .1 I

Page 8 view page image

FREE STATES. Annual;No. scholars. wi Areaii opulation,.Value ofrl No. of in colege rs, Npublic 8. of income of WVoite academtes, pupils. public population. and poblin clol.schools. 1,656 71,269 $231,220 363,099 79,003

4,052 125,725 349,712 846,034 130,411 4,822 161,500 316,955 977,154

168,754 740 29,556 51,492 191,881 30,767 4,042 192,815 315,436 581,813

199,745 3,679 176,475 1,006,795 985,450 190,924 12,714 110,455 167,806

395,071 112,382 2,381 75,643 166,944 317,456 81,237 1,473 77,930 216,672

465,509 88,244 11,580 675,221 1,47i,657 3,048,325 727,222 11,661 484,153

743,074 1,955,050 502,826 9,O061 413,706 1,348,249 2,258,160 440,977 2,731

93,457 176,111 313,402 100,785 416 23,130 100,480 143,875 25,014

,~~~~~~~~~ 61,008 2,711,035 $6,663,603 12,842,279 2,878,291 SLAVE STATES.

1,152 28,380 $315,602 426,514 37,237 353 8,493 43,763 162,189 11,050 69

1,878 22,886 47,203 3,129 1,251 32,705 182,231 521,572 43,299 2,234 71,429

211,852 761,413 85,914 664 25,046 349,679 255,491 31,003 898 33,1 11

218,836 417,943 45,025 782 18,746 254,159 295,718 26,26 1,570 51,754

160,770 592,004 61,529 2,657 104,095 158,564 553,02-8 112,430 724

17,838‘200,600 274,563 26,02 2,680 104,117 1.98,518 756,836 115,750 349

7,946 44,088 154,034 11,50 2,930 67,3-3 314,625 894,800 77,764 18,313

572,891 $2,676,173 6,113,308 687,891 I I ‘__.____:_ Value of real estate.

:…_. Area lin lltltoi rFq are 11850. iniles. 4,674 370,792 55,405

851,470 33,809 988,41.6 50,914 192,214 31,766 583,169 7,800 994,51’t 56,243 397,654 9,~80 317,976 8,320 489,;)55 47,000 3,097,394 39,964

1,980,329 46,000 2,311,786 10,‘212 314,120 1,306 147,545 402,693

13,036,934 No. wlhitC persons ovel 21 who can not read an, write. 4,739

40,054 70,540 8,120 6,147 27,539 7,912 2,957 14,248 91;293 61,030 66,928

6,189 3,340 411,036 $96,412,947 81,5‘24,835 11-2,947,740 15,672,332

64,336,119 349,129,93] 25,580,3.1 67,83‘3,108 153,151,619 564,649,649

337,521,075 427,865,660 57,320,369 54,358,231 $2,408,309,987

Connecticut…… Illinois………. Indiana………. Iowa…………

Alainie……….. .MIassachusetts… MIicll lgan…….. New IHampshire.

New Jcrsey….. Ncwv York……. Ohlio………… Pcnns ylvania….

Vermont……… Rhodle Island…. 33,757 16,819 3,859 41,200 66,687

21,2‘21 20,815 13,405 36,281 73,566 15,684 77,522 10,525 77,,005

1.508,34fi A I.-l)abna…….. Ar-kansas…….. Florida………. Gcorg ia……… Kentucky……. Louisiana……. MNaryland……..

Mlississippi……. Mlissouri……… North Carolinia.. South Carolina..

Tenniessee……. ‘exas……….. Virginia……… - $8,870,718

17,37‘2,524 7,92.i,588 121,619,739 177,013,4074 176,623,654 139,026,610

65,171,43S 66,802,223 71,702,740 105,737,49‘2 107,981,7,93 - 28,149,671

25,2,105,8.4 $1,416,102,4‘21 50,722 52,198 59,‘268 58,000 37,680 41,255

11,124 47,156 67,380 50,704 29,385 45,600 237,504 61,352 849,328 7-71,623

209,897 87,445 906,185 982,405 517,762 583,034 606,326 682,044 869,039

668,507 1,002,717 1,4-2-I,661 9,:5,21,237 I I

Powered by DLXS

To comment or inquire about content, contact moa-feedback@umich.edu To report errors, contact umdl-help@umich.edu

Reprint Information for this collection