SENATE.]

Slavery in the District of Columbia.

[FEB. 29, 1836.

pose I should, on this floor, or any one elsewhere, having as little right to interfere in the affairs of Pennsylvania, should invade that State, and tell him, in relation to a late action of the Legislature of that State, that they have resusciated in their State "a monster;" suppose the charge should be carried farther, and it should be said that all this was consummated through "fraud and bribery," what would the gentleman reply? I think his

he who lifts his own hand against the peace, the quiet, and security, of a whole community, must expect their hands to be raised against him. I warn you that another consequence must follow, of the most awful character, if these mad schemes take effect. The slaves of the South may be excited to rebellion; the lives of many women and children may, and probably would, be lost in the onset; but every one who knows any thing of the two races must know that it would end, and that quick-reply would be a ready one; that all such strictures are, ly, in the entire destruction of the African race. The spectacle of slaves cutting the throats of their masters, mistresses, and their children, would be changed into one equally horrid--the masters seeing their faithful servants slaughtered in his presence, and unable to protect their lives against the attacks of an infuriated people in arms. Is this, then, true philanthropy either to the white or black race? These consequences, I believe, will as certainly follow as that I see through that window the light of day. If, after considering these results, too horrible to be enumerated, which must follow this mad interference of the abolitionists, you still determine to persist, go on, you will ultimately see, when too late, in the destruction of that race which you would assist, in the ruin and rapine and civil strife of the people of this Union, in the overthrow of this Union itself, the consummation of a mad, mistaken, and misdirected feeling of philanthropy.

Mr. President, I might here close my remarks, but for some observations which have fallen from Senators in the course of this debate, which I am sorry were not omitted. The Senator from Connecticut before me [Mr. NILES] told us that there is no use of avoiding this question; that we might as well meet it and discuss it at once; and at the same time he informs us that he considers slavery as "a moral and political evil." Sir, we have nothing to discuss as to our legal and political rights-all admit them; as to its political influence and bearing on the institutions of the slaveholding States, it is our own business, not his nor his constituents. We will discuss this question, if we please, among ourselves; but I trust the time is far distant when we shall think it proper to discuss this or any other question, touching our own rights, with those who have no interest with us. If there is any political evil in slavery, the evil is all upon ourselves; for I challenge that Senator, or any other Senator, to point out to me any spot on this globe where the African race is more happy, more contented, better supplied with every thing which makes life desirable, than in the southern and slaveholding States. As to it being morally an evil, by which I understand him to mean that it is demoralizing, I deny it entirely; and I refer for the truth of this assertion to the southern people themselves. In what country is there more of moral virtue or more of those high qualities of the mind, based on virtue, which command our respect and admiration? I say they compare, without disadvantage, with the people of any other part of this or any other country. Sir, I must also express my deep regret that the Senator from Pennsylvania, [Mr. BUCHANAN,] whose sentiments generally met my approbation, and were such as became him, intimated the same opinion.

[Here Mr. BUCHANAN explained. He had no doubt that the people of the southern States were as virtuous as any other. He only spoke of the subject in the abstract, and declared it to be the same as that of the people of Pennsylvania generally.]

I understood it, (resumed Mr. B.,) as all amounting to the same thing in the end; for we must always attest the correctness of every theory by practical illustration; but as the gentleman has disavowed the allusion, I have but one remark more to make touching this point, that is, to point out to gentlemen the impropriety of passing judgment on the institutions of other States. Sir, sup

to say the least of them, gratuitous, and that, whether true or false, it is an intermeddling with matters which do not concern any but the citizens of Pennsylvania. I think this is the mildest answer which he could or would give. Sir, I might go farther, but this one illustration will suffice. Mr. President, there is another matter to which I will allude. It has been intimated that this question has been raised, or rather these petitions have been resisted in limine, for the purpose of making it have a political bearing; that it is intended to operate injuriously upon the prospects of a particular candidate for the presidency. Upon whom this is intended to operate we have not been distinctly informed. Sir, for one, I deny it. How is it possible that honorable gentlemen

can think that any southern man, either here or elsewhere, should be willing to mix up such a question as this with the little ephemeral miscalled politics of the day? Upon this subject, so far as the State from which I come is concerned, there is no party-upon it there is no diversity of opinion. The prosperity of that State is identified with it. Are we willing to risk this important interest on the result of a presidential contest? The thing is too absurd. We have no other interest in this contest except with others to use our exertions for the choice of an individual who will honestly and faithfully execute the laws and constitution of the United States.

Sir, much has been said about excitement produced by the agitation of this subject. Who has produced it? It is those who have sent these petitions here, not we who resist them. It has become us to speak freely. If that is to be deprecated as excitement, it is nothing more than, from the nature of things, was to be expected. We apprehend danger not only to the safety of the South, but to the integrity of this Union itself, from those movements in favor of emancipation. We consider their designs dangerous, and the means they are every day using calculated to bring destruction upon the country. We have exposed this freely, as we were in duty bound to our constituents to do. If I were to say to my constituents that all is safety, that no danger is to be apprehended, that the abolitionists are few in number and decreasing, I should not tell them the truth; for I do believe they are increasing rapidly, and that they will carry their schemes to a most dangerous extent, unless promptly met, and their views negatived by the most decided vote Congress can give. Sir, I was somewhat surprised, and not a little mortified, that the Senator from Georgia near me [Mr. KING] should think it necessary to unite in this denunciation of those who hold the negative of this proposition. What, sir, will be condemn those whose interests are identified with his own, because, when an assault is made upon our common rights, when we have every thing at stake, we prefer the adoption of the strongest, the most direct and decided measure? If any odium is to be attached to this, I stand ready and willing to bear my full proportion. Sir, I have now submitted what I intended to say, having said even this much with great reluctance, and take my seat under the clear persuasion that I will never again here open my lips upon this subject.

Mr. KING, of Georgia, said, as the Senator who had just taken his seat seemed with others to have somewhat misunderstood the import of what he had said a former day, he would like, before the question was hally

|

SENATE.]

Slavery in the District of Columbia.

[FEB. 29, 1836.

The right, as a pre-existing one, was expressly recognised by the language of the constitution itself. What was the language applicable to the question before the Senate? It prevented Congress from passing any law "abridging the right of the people to petition the Government," &c.

Was not here a plain and express recognition of the pre-existing right? "Abridge" what? His friend from Carolina was a logician as well as a statesman, and he would ask him how the constitution could provide against the "abridgment" of a right which it did not acknowlwe take any thing from nothing? Could we add securities where there was nothing to secure? Certainly not. As a thousand naughts added will make nothing, so a cipher cannot be reduced. The right, then, belonged to the people, as inseparably incident to their form of government-was acknowledged to exist by the language of the constitution, and was guardedly secured by the provisions of that instrument. Yes, (said Mr. K.,) secured against the united legislative power of the whole Government; and yet gentlemen propose unceremoniously to defeat it by a simple motion in one branch of the Legislature. He would not dwell longer upon this branch of the subject. He had already said more than was necessary. A proposition so extraordinary could only claim attention from its respectable paternity: certainly not as a fair subject of argument or discussion.

He had been asked if he would receive a petition to abolish slavery in Georgia? This was a strong and improbable case; but he had answered, and would still answer, that he should feel bound to do so, and would then treat it with that contempt which so extravagant a proposition would deserve. Mr. K. thought we had no right to refuse to receive a petition, if made by a citizen of the United States, and touching a matter that concerned him as such. These he thought the only essential requisites to entitle the petition to a reception. It must be signed by citizens, and touching their interests as citizens. We could not be embarrassed by peti-edge to exist? Could we abridge a nonentity? Could tions to relieve the Ryots of the East Indies from the oppressions of the Zemindars, or from the heavy exactions of the East India Company. Petitions for such a purpose might be refused, and gentlemen had said that this memorial might be refused on the same principles. He thought, himself, that they were meddling with a matter that should not concern them; and would strongly recommend to them to attend to their own business, and allow the people of the District to attend to theirs. But still, it was insisted that the District of Columbia was a national Territory, and under national jurisdiction; that the representatives of the people of the District were the representatives of the people of the United States; that the public buildings, and a vast amount of public property, in which they have a common interest, are located here; that the District is governed, to some extent, at the cost of the nation; in short, that there is that kind of relation between the people of the District and the people of the United States, as citizens of the same nation, which gives them an interest in the subject of their memorials. However light this reasoning, it was difficult, on principle, to get round it; and he thought, at any rate, we should not settle this question on nice distinctions, perhaps convincing to ourselves, but to nobody else.

But, (said Mr. K.,) waiving this objection, as seems to have been generally done, and how do gentlemen get round the constitutional objection of their motion? Why, they say they do not propose "to pass a law" to abridge the right of petition, and, therefore, do not propose to do any thing which the terms of the constitution forbid. He begged that his southern friends would reason on this as they would reason on other subjects; that they would shake off momentary influences, and employ their reasoning faculties for the discovery of truth. If they would only do this, they could not disagree with him for a moment, for they must instantly discover that their answer was a palpable evasion of the constitution itself. Mr. K. called for and read the first amendment, as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Congress, under this article, can pass no law to "abridge" the right of the people to petition the Government. A modern commentator on the constitution, of some note and much ability, in noticing this part of the article, dismissed it with the remark that it was totally unnecessary. This is obvious to every one who will consider for a moment the relation between a free people and the Government of their own choice. The privilege belonged (said Mr. K.) to the form of government, was united with it, and inseparable from it. It as clearly belonged to the people on the formation of the Government, as did the right to use the English language without any constitutional provision for that purpose; and (said Mr. K.) if gentlemen will only look at the constitution, and not evade it, they will see that the right was not acquired by the constitution, but only secured by it.

Mr. K. said it was perfectly clear that the people of the United States intended to secure a free intercourse between the people and their Government, and especially to place beyond doubt the right of petition.

That Congress would be troubled with many petitions it could not grant, and would occasionally have submitted to it propositions foolish and extravagant, was a foreseen incident of the right, and one that could not be avoided without assuming the power to deny the right altogether. The fact of sending a petition here for any purpose, proved that the petitioner believed he had a right to ask it, and that Congress had a right to grant it. We had only to receive the petition, look into it, decide on the right to relief, and act accordingly. No man ever was convinced of his error by refusing to hear him.

But, in the second place, (said Mr. K.,) if we, by the aid of our prejudices, should be able to convince ourselves that this motion may be sustained without a violation of the contitution, is it expedient to press it when it is apparent that we would never be able to convince any body else? It gave no promise of good, in the most favorable view of it, and in all other views threatened a great deal of mischief. All these extra and unnecessary issues, attacking popular and general rights, to secure particular rights, threw new and additional weight upon our friends, the reasoning and patriotic citizens of the North, who were using their influence in the way they thought most efficient to put down the misguided enthusiasm of the abolitionists. The evidences of every day, as well as our general reflections, should satisfy us of this. An unpopular cause was always strengthened by union with a popular one. The abolition of slavery, as prayed by the memorialists, was unpopular, and we wished it to be more so. It had not, he believed, a single advocate in the Senate. There might be an exception or two, but he did not believe it. On the other hand, the right of petition we know to be a very popular right. It always had been so, and no considerable portion of the people in any part of the Union would allow it to be questioned; and if, in the red heat of excitement, we weld these two propositions together, the unpopularity of the one will be lost in the popularity of the other, and men will thus be brought into a union of action, who are at present as widely separated in thought and purpose as the poles are asunder.

Slavery in the District of Columbia.

SENATE.]

Slavery in the District of Columbia.

required, that, in all the abolition publications that he had ever read, he had never seen a single statement of importance in relation to the subject, that he did not, of his own knowledge as a southern man, know to be destitute of truth, or, from the incredible nature of the story, believe to be so. One of these stories occurred to him, which might be selected as a fair specimen of the whole, and he selected it only because the alleged facts were confined to this city; and gentlemen who were anxious to sustain the credit of these papers could, if they chose, investigate the facts stated. He referred to the history of Miss Mary Brown, (he believed that was the name,) whose history was given in one of the anti-slavery periodicals during the last summer. Miss Mary, it seemed, was a very pious young lady, born of free parents in the city of Washington, and raised in the same place to years of maturity. She was walking in the public streets, about noon day, a few years since, (as she certainly had a right to do, if she was free,) and was met by a kidnapper, of no less responsibility than the marshal of the District, who seized her, and carried her to an auction then going on upon Pennsylvania avenue, where she was sold to a Mississippi trader, to the highest bidder, for perhaps $350. Now, sir, you perhaps suppose that, being kidnapped and sold in the city where she was born and raised, she was immediately sent off, to prevent some process in her behalf; but not at all, sir; she was lodged in the jail of the District, and there remained for thirty or forty days before she was marched, under frightful suffering, to the State of Mississippi. After much af fliction, and some adventures there, which I will not detail, she makes her way to Cincinnati, where she furnishes the materials for her biography, of which, no doubt, tens of thousands of copies have been published and circulated by these pious societies, to enlighten the Christian world on the subject of slavery in the District of Columbia and the slaveholding States. Their system seemed to be one of unmixed invention. They drew on the imagination exclusively for facts. Did gentlemen ever see a truth in one of these papers in relation to themselves? If not, why use them as evidence against their northern friends?

A great deal had been stated in one form or other, and in one quarter or other, as to the numbers and increase of these disturbers of the peace; and he did not undertake to say what was the fact. He learned, and thought it probable, that they had increased since the commencement of the session, and had heard also the increase attributed to the manner in which the subject had been treated here. However this might be, what he insisted on was, that those base productions were no evidence of the fact, or of any fact, and especially should not be used by southern men, in opposition to the statements of high-minded, honorable men at the North, who were the active and efficient friends of the South.

If gentlemen wanted further evidence of the reckless system of fabrication and falsehood pursued by the abolition fraternity, he would give them another proof of it, which he thought would settle their opinions on that point. As introductory to this further proof, however, and, in fact, as a necessary part of it, he must remind them of the glowing accounts to be seen, in all the abolition prints, of the great success and triumphant march of the missionary, George Thompson, from the time of his arrival in this country until compelled to embark rather unceremoniously on a return voyage to make his final report to the Glasgow maids who sent him. Every number of almost every paper which fell under his eye during this alleged prosperous mission was filled with flattering and cordial receptions, crowded and attentive meetings, brilliant triumphs, and increasing

[FEB. 29, 1836.

resources. All statements of formidable opposition to him were flatly contradicted. These statements were generally corroborated by Thompson, until the dying declarations of his mission, when the truth could no longer be concealed, or falsehood be made profitable. At any rate, we found him contradicting the whole preceding history of his mission, in letters written from this country to England, just before he embarked. Mr. K. read the following article from the "Leeds Mercury," an English paper.

"Mr. George Thompson.-Letters of a most distressing nature have been received from Mr. George Thomp son, the zealous and devoted missionary of slave emanci pation, who has gone from this country to the United States, and who writes from Boston. He says that the North' (that is, New England, where slavery does not exist,) has universally sympathized with the South,' in opposition to the abolitionists; that the North has let fall the mask;' that merchants and mechanics, priests and politicians, have alike stood forth the defenders of southern despots, and the furious denouncers of northern philanthropy;' that all parties of politics, especially the supporters of the two rivals for the presidential office, (Van Buren and Webster,) vie with each other in denouncing the abolitionists; and that even religious men shun them, except when the abolitionists can fairly gain a hearing from them. With regard to himself, he speaks as follows: Rewards are offered for my abduction and assassination, and in every direction I meet with those who believe they would be doing God and their country service by depriving me of life. I have appeared in public, and some of my escapes from the hands of my foes have been truly providential. On Friday last, I narrowly escaped losing my life in Concord, New Hampshire.' Boston, September 11.-This morning a short gallows was found standing opposite the door of my house, 23 Bay street, in this city, now occupied by Garrison. Two halters hung from the beam, with the words above them, By order of Judge Lynch!'"

The contradiction between this and the previous accounts referred to, he hoped, would satisfy gentlemen that the statements of abolitionists were not worthy of the use they had made of them to disprove the statements of honorable men.

Other errors, he thought, had been committed, and sentiments expressed, doubtless under the influence of excited feelings, and in the hurry of debate, which he deeply regretted. The most friendly advances, by those whose friendship had been manifested in the most undoubted manner, had been rudely repulsed. The kindest feelings had been met by unmeasured denunciation. To assurances of devoted friendship to the South and its institutions, it had been angrily answered that the South did not want the sympathies of the North; that it had no occasion for assistance, and set opposition at defiance. This was proper language to an enemy, but was uncalled for to friends, and was calculated to have an unhappy effect in weakening the national sympathies of the people. These were hasty sentiments, however, and he hoped would be so considered. As for his part, he did wish the sympathies of the northern people, where they were freely given, either on this or on any other occasion, necessary to preserve and prosper our great and glorious confederacy. And if it should ever become necessary, he wished their assistance also. ask it in a humiliating tone or a humiliating sense. demanded it as a social duty; nay, more, as the performance of a paramount constitutional obligation.

He did not

He

If we did not want the sympathies of our own countrymen, who owed them to us, whose sympathies did we expect? Those of England and France? Were there still any advocates of the wild project of preserving the South by a separation, and forming alliances with these