THE

POLITICAL TEXT-B 0 0 K.

Abolition Party.

RISE AND PROGRESS OF.

THE extraordinary increase numerically of the Abolition or Anti-Slavery party of this country cannot be better illustrated than by an exhibit of the increase of its vote, each succeeding election from its initiation as a national organization to the present day.

nature better than all the world besides, and that in consequence they were found meddling to do. He was in favor of laying the petition with concerns with which they had nothing on the table. He would never consent to refer petitions, unless the petitioners were exclusively interested.

Messrs. Fitzsimmons and IIartley of Pennsylvania, Parker, Madison and Page of Virginia, Lawrence of New York, Sedgewick of Sherman and Huntington of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Boudinot of New Jersey, favored a reference. Messrs. Smith, Tucker, and Burke of South Carolina, Baldwin and Jackson of Georgia opposed a reference, for very much the same reasons advanced by Mr. Stone, and in favor of its going to the table. On the next day the following memorial was presented and read:

It first made its appearance in national politics in the Presidential contest of 1840, when its ticket, with James G. Birney of Michigan as its candidate for the Presidency, and Francis J. Lemoyne of Pennsylvania, as its Vice-Presidential candidate, polled 7000 votes. In 1844, with Mr. Birney again as its candidate, it polled 62,140 votes. In 1848, with Martin Van Buren as the Presidential candidate of the Buffalo Convention, and Gerrit “A memorial of the Pennsylvania Society Smith as that of the more ultra anti-slavery for promoting the abolition of slavery, the men, it polled 296,232 votes. In 1852, John relief of free negroes unlawfully held in P. Hale, its nominee, polled 157,296 votes. In bondage, and the improvement of the African 1856, the candidate of the Republican party, John C. Fremont, supported by the entire Abolition party, polled 1,341,812 votes.

Mr. Lawrence of New York presented the memorial of the "Friends" of New York City | to the same effect.

Mr. Hartley of Pennsylvania moved that the first named petition be referred, which was seconded by Mr. White of Virginia.

Mr. Stone of Maryland feared that action indicating an interference with this kind of property would sink it in value, and be injurious to a great number of the citizens, particularly of the Southern States. He deprecated the disposition of religious sects to imagine they understood the rights of human

race.

"The memorial respectfully showeth :

"That, from a regard for the happiness of mankind, an association was formed, several years since, in this state, by a number of her citizens, of various religious denominations, for promoting the abolition of slavery, and for A just and acute conception of the true printhe relief of those unlawfully held in bondage. ciples of liberty, as it spread through the land, produced accessions to their numbers, many friends to their cause, and a legislative co-operation with their views, which, by the blessing of Divine Providence, have been successfully directed to the relieving from bondage a large number of their fellow-creatures, of the African race. They have also the satisfaction to observe, that, in consequence of that spirit of philanthropy and genuine liberty which is generally diffusing its beneficial influence, similar institutions are forming at home and abroad.

“That mankind are all formed by the same Almighty Being, alike objects of his care, and equally designed for the enjoyment of happi

ness, the Christian religion teaches us to believe, and the political creed of America fully coincides with the position.

"Your memorialists, particularly engaged in attending to the distresses arising from slavery, believe it to be their indispensable duty to present this subject to your notice. They have observed, with real satisfaction, that many important and salutary powers are vested in you, for promoting the welfare and securing the blessings of liberty to the people of the United States; and, as they conceive that these blessings ought rightfully to be administered without distinction of color to all descriptions of people, so they indulge themselves in the pleasing expectation that nothing which can be done for the relief of the unhappy objects of their care will be either omitted or delayed.

From a persuasion that equal liberty was originally the portion and is still the birthright of all men, and influenced by the strong ties of humanity, and the principles of their institutions, your memorialists conceive themselves bound to use all justifiable endeavors to loosen the bonds of slavery, and promote a general enjoyment of the blessings of freedom. "Under these impressions, they earnestly entreat your serious attention to the subject of slavery; that you will be pleased to countenance the restoration of liberty to those unhappy men, who alone in this land of freedom are degraded into perpetual bondage, and who, amidst the general joy of surrounding freemen, are groaning in servile subjection; that you will devise means for removing this inconsistency from the character of the American people; that you will promote mercy and justice towards this distressed race; and that you will step to the very verge of the power vested in you, for discouraging every species of traffic in the persons of our fellow-men.

BENJ. FRANKLIN, President. "Philadelphia, February 3, 1790." The debate was resumed on the memorial of the Friends presented the day before.

Mr. Tucker of S. C., was sorry it had had a second reading, as it contained an unconstitutional request, for which he wished it thrown aside. He feared the commitment of it would | be a very alarming circumstance to the Southern States, for if it was to engage Congress in an unconstitutional measure, it would be considered an interference with their rights, making them uneasy under the government, and causing them to lament that they had ever put additional power into their hands. He was surprised to see another memorial on the same subject, signed by a man* who ought to have known the constitution better. IIe thought it a mischievous attempt as it respected the persons in whose favor it was intended. It would buoy them up with hopes without a foundation, and as they could not reason on the subject, as more enlightened *Benjamin Franklin.

men would, they would do things which would incur punishment, and cause their owners to use a severity with them they were not aocustomed to.

Mr. Smith of S. C., amongst other things said, that the states would have never entered into the confederacy unless their property had been guarantied to them, for such is the state of agriculture in that country, that without slaves it must be abandoned. Why will these people then make use of arguments to induce the slave to turn his hand against his master? A gentleman can hardly come from that country with a servant or two, either to this place or Philadelphia, but there are persons trying to seduce his servants to leave him, and when they have done this, the poor wretches are obliged to rob their master, in order to obtain their subsistence; all, therefore, who are concerned in this seduction are accessories to the robbery. ** We look upon this measure as an attack upon the palladium of the property of our country; it is, therefore, our duty to oppose it by every means in our power.

Mr. Page of Va., said he lived in a state which had the misfortune of having in her bosom a great number of slaves; he held many of them himself, and was as much interested in the business as any gentleman. If he was to hold them in eternal bondage, he would feel no uneasiness on account of the present menace, because he would rely upon the virtue of Congress that they would not exercise any unconstitutional authority.

After a long debate, the memorial was committed, by a vote of yeas 43, nays 11.

The nays were, Messrs. Baldwin, Jackson, and Matthews of Ga.; Bland and Coles of Va.; Burke, Hager, Smith, and Tucker of S. C.; Stone of Md.; and Sylvester of N. Y.

The other memorials were in like manner referred.

The committee to whom the memorials were referred, made a report, which was referred to the committee of the whole House, which amended the report of the select committee, and resolved, amongst other things:

"That Congress have no authority to interfere in the emancipation of slaves, or in the treatment of them within any of the states; it remaining with the several states alone to provide any regulations therein which humanity and true policy may require.”

On the 26th of Nov., 1792, a memorial of Warner Mifflin, one of the people called Qua kers, was presented and read to the House, stating certain reflections for the consideration of Congress, and in relation to the African slave-trade, and to the humane treatment of slaves in the United Sates.

It was ordered that the said memorial and representation do lie on the table.

Mr. Swanwick defended their right to petition.

On the 28th of Nov., Mr. Steele of N. C., I ought to be referred to the Committee on the called the attention of the House to the above Fugitive Slave Law. He believed them to be memorial of Warner Mifflin. He was sur-free people, and contended that they had an prised to find this subject started anew by a undoubted right to petition the House and to be heard. fanatic, who, not content with keeping his own conscience, undertook to become the keeper of the consciences of other men; and, in a manner which he deemed not very decent, had intruded his opinions upon this House. Had an application been made to him to present such a petition, he would have avoided a compliance with it. Gentlemen of the North

do not realize the mischievous consequences which have already resulted from measures of this kind; and, if a stop were not put to it, the Southern States would be compelled to apply to the General Government for their interference.

He concluded by moving, "that the paper purporting to be a petition from Warner Mifflin, be returned to him by the Clerk of the House; and that the entry of said petition be expunged from the Journal.”

Mr. Ames of Mass., who had presented the petition, defended his presentation of it on the ground of the general right of every citizen to petition Congress. The petitioner's representative being absent, he had not, on that account, felt at liberty to decline presenting it. He had no idea of supporting the prayer of the petition; but had made up his mind long since that it was inexpedient to interfere with the subject.

That part of the motion directing the petition to be returned, was agreed to. The remainder was withdrawn by Mr. Steele, the

mover.

On the 30th of Jan., 1797, Mr. Swanwick of Pa., presented the petition of four slaves, who had been emancipated as they allege, representing that, under some law enacted by North Carolina, they could again be reduced to slavery; that they had escaped to Pennsylvania to avoid its effects; and petitioned Congress to look into the matter, as also to the case of a fellow black, who was once manumitted, and, under the same law of North Carolina, was again reduced to slavery; and who, escaping therefrom, was lying in the jail of Philadelphia, under the sanction of the act of the General Government called the Fugitive Slave Law, &c., &c., &c.

Mr. Swanwick hoped the petition would be referred to a select committee.

Mr. Blount from N. C., hoped it would not even be received. He said, under the law of North Carolina they were slaves, and could

be seized as such.

Mr. Thatcher of Mass., thought the petition

Mr. Blount said the laws of North Carolina did not permit a man to manumit his slaves. Mr. Sitgreaves of Pa., defended the petition. Mr. Heath was clearly convinced that these people were slaves, and that the object of their petition was within the jurisdiction of the legis lature of the state, and not the United States.

Mr. Madison of Va., thought it a judicial case. If they are free by the laws of North Carolina, they ought to apply to those laws and have their privileges established. He thought they could obtain their due in a court of appeals in that state.

Messrs. Rutherford and Gilbert defended a reference.

Mr. W. Smith thought that the petition ought to be sealed up and sent back to the petitioners.

Mr. Christie was much surprised that any gentleman would present such a petition, and hoped the gentleman from Pennsylvania would never hand in such a one again.

Mr. Holland contended that it was a judicial question, and that the House ought not to pretend to determine the point.

Mr. Macon of N. C., contended that justice would be done them in his state. He conceived it a delicate matter for the general government to act on, and hoped the petition

would not be committed.

Mr. W. Smith, alluding to a remark of Mr. Thatcher, that he wished to draw these people from a state of slavery into liberty, did not think that they were sent there to take up the subject of emancipation.

Mr. Varnum of Mass., and Mr. Kitchell, defended the right of the memorialists to petition, and hoped their petition would be re

ceived and be committed.

The motion to receive the petition was negatived. Yeas 33; Noes 50.

On the 30th of Nov., 1797, Mr. Gallatin of

Pa., presented a memorial of the annual meeting of Quakers, relative to the oppressed state of their African prethren, particularly those in North Carolina, who had been manumitted and again reduced to slavery. It also was directed against every species of extravagance and dissipation, such as gaming, horse-racing, cock fighting, shows, plays, and other expensive

diversions and entertainments.

The reception of the petition was debated at great length. Finally it was referred to a select committee, consisting of Messrs. Sitgreaves of Pa., Nicholas of Va., Dana of Conn., Schureman of N. J., and Smith of Md. On the 29th of Jan., 1798, Mr. Sitgreaves,

from the select committee, reported that the facts referred to in the petition were exclusively of judicial cognisance; that therefore it is not competent for the Legislature to do any thing in the business, and recommend that the memorialists have leave to withdraw their aemorial.

On the 14th of Feb., 1798, the House concurred in the report of the committee.

The same petition was presented in the Senate, but withdrawn.

breathed the general spirit of emancipation, and though its request began with the District, its ulterior purpose went much further. He opposed the printing.

The motion to print was negatived by a large majority.

On the 12th of December, 1831, Mr. John Quincy Adams presented fifteen petitions from numerous inhabitants of Pennsylvania, praying the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, and the abolition of the slave-trade therein. So far as the latter desire was concorned, he thought it a proper subject of legislation by Congress, and that the petitions on that account should be referred to the committee on the District of Columbia. As to the other prayer of the petition, the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, he deemed it his duty to say that he would not support it. Whatever his opinion of slavery in the abre-stract, or of slavery in the District of Columbia might be, he hoped the subject would not be discussed in the House. He would say that the most salutary medicine unduly administered, was the most deadly poison.

In the Senate, on the 21st of Jan., 1805, Mr. Logan of Pa., presented the memorial of the representatives of the Quakers, pleading the cause of their oppressed and degraded fellow men of the African race, and praying that Congress may adopt effectual measures to prevent the introduction of slavery into the territories of the United States.

On the question shall the petition be ceived, it was decided in the affirmative.

YEAS.-Messrs. Adams of Mass., Bayard of Del., Brown of Ky., Condit of N. J., Franklin of N. C., Hillhouse of Conn., Howland of R. I., Logan of Pa., Maclay of Pa., Mitchill of N. Y., Olcott of N. H., Pickering of Mass., Plumer of N. H., Smith of O., Smith of Vt., Stone of N. C., Sumter of S. C., White of Del., and Worthington of ().—19.

NAYS.-Messrs. Anderson of Tenn., Baldwin of Geo., Bradley of Vt., Cocke of Tenn., Jackson of Geo., Moore of Va., Smith of Md., Smith of N. Y., and Wright of Md.-9.

A like memorial was presented in the House on the same day, and referred.

During the month of January, 1817, several petitions were presented against the slavetrade between the middle and southern states, which were read and referred.

During the first session of the 16th Congress, sundry petitions were presented against the introduction of slavery into any state thereafter to be admitted, some of which were referred and others merely read.

On the 12th of February, 1827, Mr. Barney of Md., presented to the House a memorial of certain citizens of Baltimore, Md., praying that a law may be passed providing that all children hereafter born of parents held to slavery, within the District of Columbia, shall be free at a certain age, and moved that it be printed.

Mr. McDuffie of S. C., opposed the printing of the memorial.

Mr. Cook of Ill., moved to lay it on the table; which motion the chair pronounced to be out of order.

Mr. Powell of Va., opposed the printing. Mr. Barney had made the motion to print, because the memorialists had requested him to do so. He was perfectly content to acquiesce in the decision of the House.

Mr. Dorsey of Md., conceived the memorial]

In the Senate, January 7, 1836, Mr. Morris of Ohio, presented several petitions from citizens of Ohio, one of which was signed by ladies, praying the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, and moved to refer them to the committee on the District of Columbia.

Mr. Calhoun asked that the question should first be taken on receiving the petition. He demanded it on the part of the state he represented, because one-half the Union was deeply slandered in these petitions. The Senate had refused to receive petitions, because they implicated members of that body. Were they to put more reprobation on the slander of an insovereign states? dividual member, than on the slander of

Ile demanded the question, because these memorials aimed at a violation of the constitution, and because he was averse to an agitation which would sunder the Union. It was agitation here that they feared, because it would compel the southern press to discuss the question in the very presence of the slaves, who were induced to believe that there was a powerful party at the north, ready to assist them. As a lover of the Union he objected to receiving them, nay, they must cease or the southern people never can be satisfied. And

how will you put a stop to them? By receiv-| which these memorials are now presented?

ing these petitions and laying them on the table? No, no! The Abolitionists understood this too well? Nothing would stop them but a stern refusal, by closing the doors to them, and refusing to receive them.

Mr. Morris of Ohio, contended, that the petitions contemplated no legislation by Congress, not within its constitutional power, exclusive legislation being, in his opinion, vested in Congress, both as to persons and things within the District of Columbia. In this view of the case he contended for the reception of the petition, and warned the Senate to be careful how it tread on this ground, lest, in its attempts to make petitions palatable, it does not abridge the sacred right of peti

A number of fanatics, led on by foreign incendiaries, have been scattering arrows, firebrands, and death' throughout the southern states; the natural tendency of their publications is to produce dissatisfaction and revolt among the slaves, and to incite their wild pas sions to vengeance. All history, as well as the present condition of the slaves, proves that there can be no danger of a servile war, but in the mean time what dreadful scenes may he enacted before such an insurrection, which would spare neither age nor sex, could be sup pressed; what agony of mind must be suffered, especially by the gentler sex, in consequence of these publications? Many a mother clasps her infant to her bosom when she retires to rest, under dreadful apprehensions that she may be aroused from, her slumbers by the savage yells of the slaves by whom she is surMr. Buchanan had had in his possession rounded. These are the works of the aboliseveral weeks a memorial from a meeting of tionists. That their motives may be honest I Quakers, making the same prayer, which he do not doubt, but their zeal is without knowhad deferred presenting, because he believed ledge. The history of the human race prethat, by private consultations, some resolution sents numerous examples of ignorant enthumight be devised upon this exciting subject, siasts, the purity of whose intentions cannot which would obtain the unanimous sanction | be doubted, who have spread devastation and of the Senate. He felt it, however, to be due bloodshed over the face of the earth." to the memorialists, himself, and the Senate, respectfully but firmly to state the reasons why he could not advocate their views, or acquiesce in their conclusions.

tion.

Mr. Porter of La., opposed the reception of the petition.

If any one principle of constitutional law can at this day be considered as settled, it is that Congress had no right, no power, over the question of slavery in those states where it exists. The property of the master in his slave existed in full force before the federal constitution was adopted. It was a subject that then belonged, as it still belongs, to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Southern States. These states, by the adoption of the constitution, never yielded to the general government any right to interfere with the question. It remains where it was previous to the establishment of our confederacy.

The constitution has in the clearest terms recognised the right of property in slaves. It prohibits any state into which a slave may have fled, from passing any law to discharge him from slavery, and declares that he shall be delivered up by the authorities of such state to his master; nay, more, it makes the existence of slavery the foundation of political power, by giving to those states within which it exists representatives in Congress, not only in proportion to the whole number of free persons, but also in proportion to three-fifths of the number of slaves.

After showing that Congress, on the 23d day of March, 1790, had so determined, and that the Union would be dissolved at the moment an effort would be seriously made by the free states in Congress to pass such laws, he continued:

* * *

* *

"This being a true statement of the case as applied to the states where slavery exists, what is now asked by these memorialists? That in this district of ten miles square, a district carved out of two slaveholding states, and surrounded by them on all sides slavery should be abolished. What would be the effects of granting their request? You would thus erect a citadel in the very heart of these states, upon a territory which they have ceded to you for a far different purpose, from which abolitionists and incendiaries could securely attack the peace and safety of their citizens; you establish a spot within the slaveholding states which would be a city of refuge for runaway slaves; you create, by law, a central point from which trains of gunpowder may be securely laid, extending into the surrounding states, which may at any moment produce a destructive and fearful explosion. By passing such a law you introduce the enemy into the very bosom of these two states, and afford them every opportunity of producing a servile insurrection. Is there any reasonable man who can for one moment suppose that Virginia and Maryland would have ceded the District of Columbia to the United States, if they had entertained the slightest idea that Congress would have used it for any such purpose? They ceded it for your use, for your convenience, and not for their own destruction. When slavery ceases to exist under the laws of Virginia and Maryland, then, and not till then, ought it to be abolished in the District of Columbia."

Mr. Buchanan continuing said, notwithstanding these were his views, he could not vote against receiving these memorials, but moved that the whole subject be postponed

"What, then, are the circumstances under until Monday next.