SENATE.] 66 Slavery in the District of Columbia. The first article of the amendments to the constitution is relied upon as denying to us all power to reject this petition. That article is 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 to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." What is it on this subject that Congress cannot do? It can "make no law" "abridging" the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Do we propose to abridge this right? Do we attempt to say to the people, either by a law or otherwise, that they shall not peaceably assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances? Do we say they shall not assemble, or that, when assembled, they shall not petition? Or even that, when the petition is subscribed, they shall not present it for the action of this body? We say none of these things. Notwithstanding our refusal to receive this petition, the people may again assemble, again subscribe and present here another and another petition, precisely similar to that now before us; and this right we do not undertake to abridge or question. But when the people have fully exercised and exhausted the right of petition, as secured by the constitution, and presented that petition here, then our rights begin, and we may, in determining the order of our own proceedings, reject the whole petition; or, what is nearly the same thing, reject the prayer, which is the vital part of it, or refer the petition, or postpone indefinitely the consideration of it, or lay it upon the table, to sleep the sleep of death, and the constitutional rights of the people are not infringed by adopting any of these modes. I am not willing to be accused of violating the sacred right of petition; my veneration of that right is as great as that of any Senator upon this floor; but this right is not assailed or invaded by refusing to receive the petition, but remains in its full force, unimpaired and undiminished, subject to be exercised in all its extent, whenever the people resolve to petition for a redress of grievances. I repeat it, we do not say that the people shall not assemble-that they shall not petition-that they shall not present their petitions here we do not, in any manner, limit the action of the petioners, either by the adoption of any law or rule on this subject; we do not even say that this petition shall not be read or discussed; but when all this has taken place, we may refuse to receive the petition, either because its language is offensive, or because it asks us to violate our oaths and the constitution, or because it requests us to disturb the harmony of the Union, or for any other cause the Senate may deem sufficient, for the constitution is silent upon this topic, leaving it where it ought to be left, to the sound, well-regulated discretion of the Senate on this subject; and as we cannot and do not undertake to limit or prescribe the manner in which the people shall exercise the right of petition, so neither can we permit these or any other petitioners to usurp the power of this body, and dictate the manner in which we shall act upon their petition. Nor is there any thing clearer to my mind, than that to compel the Senate to receive all petitions, however wild or visionary they might be, or destructive of the Union or of the constitution, would be to interpolate in that instrument a most dangerous provision. Suppose the Senate refuse to grant the prayer of these petitioners, and that another and another petition for the same purpose is presented from day to day, and week to week, must we for ever continue to receive these petitions, and render the Senate a registering tribunal for abolition memorials, denouncing the institutions and people of the South? My constituents have rights on this floor, as well as these petitioners; and I shall not, to gratify the blind fanaticism [MARCH 2, 1836. or gangrened malice of these or any other abolitionists, put in jeopardy all that is dear to the people of Mississippi, by consenting to receive these or any other petitions of a similar character. My honorable friend, the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, [Mr. BUCHANAN,] has referred us to various enactments of the British Parliament, limiting the number of petitioners, or providing for their dispersion by an armed force, or annexing various precedent conditions and limitations restricting the right of petition, and imposing penalties upon the exercise of that right. Now, the illustration afforded by a reference to these laws appears to me to weaken the position assumed by that Senator. It was with a knowledge of all these laws, and others of a congenial character, that the declaratory amendment was introduced into the constitution, with a view to protect the American people against the enactment of similar laws by the Congress of the United States. But we undertake to pass no such laws, or any laws whatever on this subject; we propose to exercise no such power, nor do we impose any limitations or restrictions upon the exercise of the right of petition. It is said, however, that what we cannot do by the passage of a law, we will accomplish by adopting the present motion. What we cannot do by a law, has been already stated: the constitution states it, by declaring that we cannot abridge "the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Now, this right remains untouched; it cannot be touched by any order this House may now make upon this petition. It is positive legislative action, limiting the exercise of the right of petition, that is forbidden by the constitution, and not the mere order this House may make after the presentation of the petition here, when the right secured by the constitution has been fully exercised and exhausted. It is said that to reject a petition is to render the right of petition an empty form. As well might it be contended that to reject the prayer, which is the vital part of the petition, would render nugatory the right of petition, as to say that this right is invaded by rejecting the petition itself. To reject the prayer is to deprive the memorial of all vitality--to make it a dead letter, an empty sound, a mere preambulary-nothing. A petition without a prayer is an absurdity-it is not a petition; and if we may reject a part of the petition, the only part which makes it a petition, why may we not reject the whole petition? A petition is a written prayer for us to do or not to do a certain act; and if we reject the prayer, we do substantially reject the petition itself. If the rejection of these petitions could induce the abolitionists to refrain from sending here any further similar memorials, it should constitute a strong reason in favor of adopting this motion. It is because I wish, not by the enactment of any law, or the adoption of any rule abridging the right of petition, but by the moral influ ence of our votes and opinions, to arrest the transmission of abolition memorials to this House, that I vote against receiving the petition. The friends of both motions are equally opposed to the abolitionists; both desire to put out these balls of flame, which are kindled at the North in the fires of fanaticism, and blown into tenfold fury here, in the very act of endeavoring to extinguish them. We are told, that to reject these petitions is to increase their number. And have these petitions been diminished in number by receiving them in times that are past? Has this course been heretofore successful, or, rather, have not these petitions multiplied from year to year? Are they not now increasing? And can we expect, by yielding any thing from courtesy to fa natical incendiaries, to diminish their number, or arrest the surges of that mighty flood which threatens to overwhelm the institutions of the country? No! It is only by indomitable firmness and resolution, by a spirit of resistance unsubdued, unconquerable, by a resort to the very strongest measures, that we can hope to arrest the mad career of the incendiary, or strike down that Moloch banner which waved in blood-stained triumph over the desolate fields of St. Domingo, and beneath whose gloomy folds so many thousands are now summoned to the crusade, against the lives and property of the people of the South. Will persuasive measures, will courtesy, will mildness and moderation, check this fearful spirit? Have they checked it? Or will they, or can they, rescue us from the dangers and difficulties by which we are environed? It is by meeting these incendiaries at the onset of their attack, and sternly rebuking them, by the rejection of all their petitions, that we may indulge the hope that here, at least, they will cease to disturb the repose of the country. [SENATE jury of the country. To liberate the slaves of this District, even with compensation, would be equally a violation of the constitution; for, to liberate them, is not to take them for the use of the public, by a transfer of property to the Government or its agents. Unless, then, this Government has the power, which none pretend, to purchase and hold slaves, to gratify the morbid sensibility of a few miserable fanatics, it can never, in any manner, constitutionally affect the institution of slavery in this District. Do not the people of this District live under the guarantees of the constitution? Or could Congress, by the mere passage of a law, take from the people of this District their lands, their lots, their houses, as well as their slaves? If Congress have such a power, the Government of this District is the very climax of despotism. The States of Virginia and Maryland had no such power; they could not, therefore, impart it in the cession of this District; they never intended to impart any such authority; they never would have ceded this District upon any such conditions. Fully persuaded, then, that we have no authority over the case embraced in the petition, I shall vote against receiving it. Gentlemen tell us that they look at slavery in the States as the constitution looks at it, as a question beyond their control. And why not look at slavery in the District as the constitution looks at it, and leave it also where the constitution found and left it? The institution of slavery, as it exists in the States, I will not discuss here, either as an abstract or a practical question, because we have no control over it. But this I will say, that the people of the South, so much abused by aboli. tion petitioners, will be declared by faithful history as unsurpassed in any age or country in all that adorns the character of man. Her heroes, her patriots, her statesmen, will live among the brightest models of human ex To reject the petition, it is said, is to condemn the petitioners unheard. I am not for introducing here the principles of Rhadamanthus, to punish first, and hear afterwards; although it is true that the "dura regna,' the gloomiest caverns of Rhadamanthus, are the appropriate abodes of abolition incendiaries. But have not these petitioners been heard? Has not their petition been read here, and fully discussed? They cannot say, "strike, but hear me," for we have heard them, and the question is, shall we receive their petition? Why is this motion on the reception of the petition propounded, if we may not answer no, as well as ay? Is the propounding of this question an empty form, or is the question already answered in the affirmative, by the constitution itself? The very question propounded is itself a violation of the constitution, if we may not give a negative as well as an affirmative answer. Under the power delegated by the constitution to each House, to "determine the rules of its proceedings," the call for this pre-cellence, when the blind spirit of fanaticism, which now liminary question may be demanded as a matter of right; and the right to propound the question involves the right to vote in the negative, or affirmative, without any violation of the constitution. There is another reason influencing me to oppose the reception of this petition. Why receive the petition, when the Government has no constitutional power to grant the redress requested? Would not the reception of the petition, under such circumstances, be an idle ceremony? Congress has no constitutional power to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia. It is said, Congress has a grant of "exclusive legislation" over this District. So has Congress, under the same clause of the constitution, "like authority" over "all places" purchased from any of the States; and, upon the same principles, Congress might therefore abolish slavery in all those places purchased in the slaveholding States, or, what is still stronger, introduce and establish slavery in all those places purchased from the non-slaveholding States. But this is a grant of "exclusive," not of unlimited, power of legislation; a grant only of legislative power over the District, to the exclusion, in all cases whatsoever," of any concurrent jurisdiction. There are, however, other clauses in the constitution which limit and restrict this power as regards this District, especially the provision which for bids Congress to deprive any citizen of his "property" "without due process of law;" and further declares, "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." But this petition proposes to take from the people of this District their slaves, which are their "private property," "without due process of law," "without compensation," and for no "public use," the only case in which private property can be taken, even with compensation; and that compensation, the Supreme Court of the Union has decided, must first be paid or tendered under the finding of a assails her institutions, shall be remembered only to be condemned and execrated. ces." The constitutional provision, so much relied on by the opponents of this motion, guaranties the right of petition for but one purpose, "a redress of grievanWhose grievances? Certainly those of the petitioners. Now, is it any grievance of these petitioners, all far distant from this District, that the people within its limits own lands, or lots, or slaves? And why should they ask us to receive their petition for a redress of grievances, which those who are alone concerned neither know nor acknowledge? And what is this proposition which we are asked to receive and consider? It is a proposition to violate the constitution, and endanger the Union. It is a proposition for rapine, plunder, and spoliation. It is a proposition, not merely to attempt to render the slaves of this District freemen, but, in its inevitable results and consequences, to render the freemen of this District slaves; to chain them to the car of a despotic central power, whilst the wild spirit of fanaticism lashes her fiery steeds over the broken columns and shattered fragments of the constitution, and, driving onward in exulting triumph to the very Capitol of the nation, waves her black and bloodstained banner from the very dome, where now float the glorious kindred emblems of our country's Union. The mighty revolution proposed by these petitioners would make this District a den of thieves and assassins, of liberated slaves and blacks already free. It is threatened with a sale to the Dutch, but the District would not be worth selling after you had delivered it up to the negroes. This proposition would make the District an asylum for fugitive slaves from the States, the grand citadel of abolitionism, whence it would light the torch of the incendiary, and whet the knife of the assassin, upon the very borders of Virginia and Maryland. It would fill the whole District to overflowing with a free negro population, drunk with the wild spirit of fanaticism, and render it utterly impossible for any southern man to legislate here, except at the peril of his life. And can we, ought we, will we, submit to this? No, never. Oh, my country! are we American Senators, and is this the Senate Chamber of the American Union, in which we are constrained to debate such a proposition as this? Mr. President, let us all awake to the momentous consequences of the perpetual agitation of this fearful question; let us shake off all somnambulism, and contemplate for a few moments the true character and inevitable consequences of abolition agitation. It is a question, not of abolition, or anti-abolition, but of union or disunion. The vital current freezes around my heart when I contemplate the bare possibility of a dismemberment of this Union; but, with a view to prevent this dread catastrophe, it is time to address the people of the North in the language of truth; to tell them that abolitionists are disunionists; that their success would be the success of disunion; that if they love this Union, let them all now rise in the majesty of their strength, and put down for ever those fanatical incendiaries, who are threatening to place in jeopardy all that is dear to the people of the South. We ask them to teach the abolitionists, that to persist in their mad career unchecked is to endanger the Union, and that their object, the abolition of slavery in the South, would not and never can be accomplished; that they may fill every pulpit, every college, every State of the North, with abolition incendiaries, and yet they will not, cannot, accomplish their object. They may check the amelioration of the condition of slaves in the South, heretofore so rapidly progressing; they may deprive them of many privileges which they before enjoyed; they may substitute distrust for confidence, and subject the slave, from dire necessity, to much severer discipline; they may change the now truly happy and pastoral condition of the southern slaves into one of chains and bondage; they may almost extirpate the negro race, for they are unfit for freedom; but this is all they can accomplish. No, this is not quite the full extent of their victory. They may occasionally incite a few negroes to insurrection. Here and there, for a short time, a few of our generous and chivalrous people may fall beneath the knife of the black insurgent, urged on by northern abolitionists. Now and then a few of our dwellings may be consumed by the torch of the incendiary; a few, a very few, of the mothers, sisters, wives, and children, of the people of the South may fall in one indiscriminate and unsparing massacre; but the grand object of the abolitionists can never, never, be accomplished. They may publish document after document, and print after print, and it will all be vain and nugatory. They will not have made the slighest approach towards the grand object of all their efforts. No; our peculiar institutions we will yield only at the point of the bayonet, and in a struggle for their defence we would be found invincible. [MARCH 2, 1836. templation of the mighty stake which is at hazard, and see what we can do to maintain and perpetuate the blessings of this great confederacy. Let us also never forget that now is the time for exertion; for if the sun of this Union should once set, it will go down for ever; that there will be no morning to the midnight of that universal despotism which would ensue upon the setting of the sun of the American Union. A distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. WEBSTER,] in a celebrated debate here, declared, that whenever the Union was in danger, he should be found in the midst of the combat, crying “to the rescue, to the rescue." Sir, the Union is in danger; the battle is now going on; it is progressing in this Senate chamber; here, here, we are endeavoring to resist the efforts of abolition incendiaries; and will he not now come to the rescue? Now is the accepted time; now is the day for the salvation of his country's Union. May I also be permitted to call upon the eminent Sen. ator from South Carolina [Mr. CALHOUN] to come forward, as he did in the days of his early glory, as the champion of the honor and perpetuity of this Union. Whilst the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. WEBSTER] shall sternly rebuke the fanatical abolitionists of the North, let the voice of the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. CALHOUN] be heard, in endeavoring to prevent the formation of a southern sectional and geographical party, which must prove fatal to the permanency of this confederacy. Not many years past, these two Senators were engaged upon opposite sides of a great controversy, when the scales of intellectual superiority were left in equipoise. Now, let them go forward together, the one with the good broadsword of Richard, the other with the keen sabre of Saladin, not to engage in another political tournament with each other, but to go forward together as champions of the Union against the abolitionists of the North, as champions of the Union against sectional or geographical parties in the South, and they will wreath their brows with unfading laurels; laurels that can never be gathered upon the grave of their country's Union; laurels that can flourish only in that holy American atmosphere, which embraces the whole country, and all its parts. To my honorable and distinguished friend, the Senator from Pennsylvania, [Mr. BUCHANAN,] most happy am I to say, it is unnecessary to appeal. He has avowed sentiments upon this floor, on this subject, worthy of the best days of the republic; worthy of Pennsylvania, the keystone of the arch of the Union: worthy of the spirit in which the constitution was formed, and which can alone perpetuate its blessings. And, Mr. President, let us all have the same proud consciousness of endeavoring to discharge our duty. Let us send forth the dove from this Senate chamber, to return with the olive branch of peace. Let us endeavor to find some political Ararat, where the ark of our Union, now tossing upon the dark surges of tumultuous passions, may yet repose, and where we may truly declare that the deluge of bitter waters has subsided. This is not the language of a nullifier or secessionist. No; it is the opinion of one who ever has opposed and will continue to oppose those doctrines, as fatal to Mr. President, whilst I cannot say there is no danthe perpetuity of the American Union. It is the languageger to the Union from abolition incendiarism, yet neither of a man whose love of this Union is as warm as the vital blood that gushes from his heart; who values his own destiny here as less than a bubble bursting on the ocean surge, compared with the duration of this Government, and life itself as utterly worthless, were this Union dismembered. It is because he thus loves and values the Union that he would warn the people of the North that the unchecked efforts of the abolitionists do endanger this Union; that we ask for the strongest and most decisive measures against them; and that they may be made to know and feel that they can in no contingency effect their object. Let us all then rouse ourselves to the con can I agree with the very eloquent Senator from South Carolina [Mr. PRESTON] in believing that the case is desperate; that Europe is against us, the North against us, and that abolitionism must triumph or dismember the Union. Whilst the thrilling but lugubrious tones, the melancholy bodings, of that Senator were echoing through these halls, could we not almost fancy that the sun of the Union was now sinking beneath the horizon; that darker and yet darker clouds were gathering round us; that the elemental strife had already commenced, and that fanaticism had already drawn the line which marked the boundaries of a dismembered empire? This was a picture of fancy; but what are the facts? That Senator seems to have no confidence in the people of the North; he seems to regardthem as abolitionists by some imperious, irresistible necessity. My confidence in the American people, in the people of the North as well as the South, is firm and unshaken. It is the people who established and maintained, and will perpetuate, this Union. It is they who will come to the rescue when the Union is in danger; it is they who will sacrifice abolitionism, as a burnt offering, upon the altar of our country's welfare. From the humblest cottage they will come forward, with American hearts and American feelings, and triumphantly sustain those honorable Senators from the North, who are so nobly maintaining here the cause of our common country. They will be hailed, upon their return to their constituents, as the preservers of that Union which the people value above all price, and which they are resolved to transmit to their children, all whole and inviolate, in undiminished glory. Shall we then despair of this Union, when our brethren of the North are rising to crush out the fangs of those vipers that are hissing among them? Look at Boston, at Utica, at Albany, at New York, at Philadelphia, and say, are not the people of the North preparing to put their feet upon the fanatical disturbers of our country's repose? And are they not doing it in a spirit of manly, American patriotism, worthy of the best days of our republic, and with a vigor beyond the law? Say not, then, that the people of the North and the South have no common sympathies or affection. Our whole history is one of a common origin, of common wrongs, and sympathies, and resistance, and triumphs, and it will be the history of a common destiny. The descendants of New England, of New York, of Pennsylvania, will be with us, as their fathers were, in the hour of gloom and danger, when they baptized with their blood the sunny plains of Carolina, and mingled their ashes with those of our forefathers, upon the battle fields of the South. More especially do we regard with heartfelt gratitude the noble efforts of the people of the great State of New York, against abolition incendiarism. They are fighting our battles against a powerful foe; they are fighting our battles beneath the banner of the constitution and the Union; and shall we, can we, withhold from them the tribute of our heartfelt gratitude? And if public opionion should be found insufficient to check this fanatical spirit of abolitionism, Governor Marcy, of New York, in his executive message, proposes to suppress it by legislative enactments. Go on, then, noble [SENATE. tion that if this Government is to continue to accomplish the great purpose for which it was established, it can only be by administering it in the same spirit in which it was created. When the constitution was framed, the great and leading interests of the whole country were considered, and, in the spirit of liberality and compromise, were ad justed and settled. They were settled upon principles that ought to remain undisturbed so long as the constitution lasts, which I hope will be for ever; for although liberty may be preferable to the Union, yet I think the Union is indispensable to the security of liberty. At the formation of the constitution, slavery existed in many of the States; it was one of the prominent interests that was then settled; it, in all its domestic bearings, was left exclusively to the respective States; to do with as they might think best, without any interference on the part of the federal Government. This, it is admitted by every gentleman who has addressed you, is now the case in every slaveholding State; therefore it is only urged that Congress has the power to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia. It should never be forgot. ten that, when the constitution was formed and adopted, what is now the District of Columbia was then comprehended within two of the slaveholding States, Maryland and Virginia. Suppose, when all the details of the constitution had been adjusted, it had been foreseen that the District of Columbia would be formed out of a tract of country ceded by those States, and situated in the centre between them, it had been asked of the members of the convention, what do you intend as to the District? You have placed the question of slavery in the States entirely under their control within their respective limits-do you intend that Congress shall have the power to abolish slavery in the District? Would not every man have answered in the negative? It has been said that when petitions to abolish slavery are presented to either house of Congress, those who demand the question whether they shall be received, and thus produce discussion, are agitators, and produce excitement on this delicate subject. To me it seems this is unfair. Let us for a moment consider the circumstances of the country, and the situation in which we are all placed. During There are twenty-four States, several Territories, and this District. Thirteen of these States have no slaves, the other eleven have slaves; in fact, their slaves constitute a large item of all the property they own. and enlightened Chief Magistrate of New York; go on, the past year, it has so happened that many newspapers, virtuous and patriotic people, and put down abolition in- pamphlets, and pictorial representations, made their apcendiarism, and you will erect to yourselves a monument, pearance, and were, through the mail, and by other upon which the American people will engrave, in letters means, extensively circulated in the slaveholding States. never to be effaced-New York, her patriots, her states- By these means a spirit of discontent was created, men, and her people; they have preserved the Union. which occasioned much excitement and disorder in And if there are any of any party on this floor, who various places, and rendered it necessary, in a summary come forth as witnesses or champions in the cause of manner, to put to death several white persons, and a abolition, let them stand alone in their glory; the glory of number of slaves. In various quarters of the Union aiding in the dismemberment of this Union. And should there were assemblages of people, who expressed their they succeed in destroying this Government, let them opinions with great freedom. In the course of the fall not suppose that the present age, or that posterity, will and winter, many of the State Legislatures have been rank them with the wise, the virtuous, the good, or the in session; they have been addressed on this subject by truly pious. No; on this side the tomb, amid the tears their respective Governors; they have expressed pubthat patriots shed over the ruins of our departed glory, licly their opinions. The President, in his message, they would be pointed out with loathing and disgust, as has invited the attention of Congress to it; the Senate guilty traitors and criminals; and when thay have esca- has referred that part of the message to a special comped in the grave the horrors of this living death, poster-mittee, which has made a lengthy report, accompanied ity will inscribe upon their tombstones that damning ep-by a bill, which is now upon our docket, and must, in itaph of everlasting infamy-Here lies a destroyer of the due course, be discussed, and either passed or rejected. American Union. Are all these to be called agitators, and charged with Mr. WHITE succeeded to the floor, and thus address- unnecessarily producing excitement? If not, how is it ed the Chair: that members of Congress are to be thus charged, when Mr. President: I address you under the solemn convic-petitions are presented that we must in some mode dis pose of? Each of us must suggest such mode as we think most correct, and none can justly be liable to any such charge. If there is any wrong, it is found in those who, in such a state of public feeling, will press their petitions upon us. The petitions are forwarded to members who feel it their duty to present them; when presented, others think it their duty to demand the question whether they shall be received. Is it true that, on this delicate subject, every officer of the federal or State Governments can express his opinion as to what it is best to do, and that a Senator dare not express his opinion without being liable to censure? I hope not. This is a delicate subject: would to God it had not been pressed upon us; but, as it is placed here by the petitioners, we must dispose of it. To enable us to do so, we must think upon it, and we may tell each other what we think, and our reasons for so thinking. It is not by speaking upon it we will be likely to do mischief. Every thing depends upon the temper with which we express our opinions, and the sentiments we advance. My wish and aim is, if I can do no good, to do no harm; and if I believed in what I propose to say I would utter a sentiment from which mischief would be produced, I would close my lips, take my seat, and content myself with yea or nay to every question proposed by others, leaving every person at liberty to conjecture the reasons for my votes; but entertaining no fear of that kind, I must ask permission to state, as briefly as I can, some of the reasons for the course I shall pursue. In doing this, I shall not address myself to Senators coming from either the East or the West, the North or the South, in particular, but to the Senate, the whole Senate, because, if it is desired, as I believe it is, that we should remain together as one people, secure, prosperous, happy, and contented, the whole country, every section of it, having a deep interest in this matter, this agitation and excitement must cease. What, then, ought we to do, as most likely to put an end to those angry feelings which now prevail? In my opinion, we should refuse to receive these petitions. It is a mere question of expediency what disposition we shall make of them. All who have yet spoken admit that Congress has no power whatever over slavery in the respective States. It is settled. Whether slavery is right or wrong, we have now no power to consider or discuss it. Suppose, then, a petition were presented to abolish slavery in the States, would we receive it? Assuredly we ought not, because it would be asking us to act upon a subject over which we have no power. But these are petitions asking Congress to abolish slavery in this District. Have we the power? I think not. I consider the argument of the honorable Senator from Virginia, [Mr. LEIGH,] upon that point, conclusive. It has not been answered, and I do not believe it can be. Slaves are property in this District-Congress cannot take private property, even for public use, without making just compensation to the owner. No fund is provided by the constitution to pay for slaves which may be liberated, and the constitution never gives Congress the power to act upon any subject, without, at the same time, furnishing the means for its accomplishment. To liberate slaves is not taking them for public use. It is declaring that neither individuals nor the public shall use them. I will not weaken the honorable member's argument by going over it. This District was intended as the place where the great business of the nation should be transacted for the good of the whole. Congress, under the constitution, is placed here to legislate upon those subjects enumerated and specified in the constitution, that we might be able to protect ourselves, and the officers residing here, and be out of the reach of the laws of any State. It was [MARCH 2, 1836. never intended that we should have any local legislation, except such as would meet the wants and wishes of the people residing within the ten miles square. We should never permit this place to be converted into a political workshop, where plans would be devised, or carried into operation, that will have the effect of destroying the interest of any of the States. Members of Congress, executive and judicial officers, were to come from any and every section of the Union, from the slaveholding and the non-slaveholding States, and their property was to be as secure here, in this ten miles square, as it was in the States from which they respectively came. They would bring their habits and their domestic servants with them; those from the nonslaveholding States their hired servants, and those from the slaveholding States their slaves. And who can believe it was intended to vest the power in Congress to liberate them if brought within the District? Again: The right of property in slaves in the States is sacred, and beyond the power of Congress to interfere with, in any respect; yet, if it be conceded that we have the power to liberate them in the District, we can as effectually ruin the owners as if we had the power to liberate slaves in the States. By abolishing slavery here, we not only make a place of refuge for runaways, but we produce a spirit of discontent and rebellion in the minds of slaves in the neighboring States, which will soon spread over all, and which cannot fail to compel owners to destroy their own slaves, to preserve their own lives and those of their wives and children. I beseech gentlemen to look at this matter as it is. Take, for illustration, the case of a small planter in Mississippi, living on his own land, with thirty slaves to cultivate it. Suddenly it is discovered that one half of them are concerned in a plot to destroy the lives of their master, his family, and neighbors, with a view to produce their freedom, and immediately, with or without law, they are tucked up and hanged. The man is thus deprived of his property without any chance for an indemnity, besides the disquiet and anxiety of mind occasioned by a loss of confidence in his remaining slaves. It cannot have been intended that Congress, by acting on this subject, should have a power thus to occasion a destruction of slave property. To me it seems that we ought to treat those petitions precisely as we would do if they prayed us to abolish slavery in one of the States. We have no more power to abolish it here than we have there. I think, in either case, we ought to refuse to receive them. I hold that, if the petitioners ask us to do that which we have no power to do, or to do that which will be productive of a great and lasting mischief, we not only have the right, but that it is our duty, to refuse to receive them. By the constitution, no man can be held to answer for a criminal charge but by presentment or indictment. Suppose a petition presented here, alleging that some citizen in the District had been guilty of a crime, and that he was so influential that he could not be reached by the ordinary forms of law in court, and therefore we are asked to pass a bill of attainder, ought we to receive the petition? Suppose a petition to ask us to pass a law to prohibit any member of this body from making a speech against the prayer of the petitioners, would we receive it? Suppose a petition to be offered asking us to establish a particular religion in this District, or to prohibit any publication in a newspaper on the subject of abolishing slavery, unless it was previously approved of by a committee, would we, ought we, to receive any such petition? I think, most certainly, we ought not. But suppose we have the power, is there any Senator who believes we ought to exercise it? I trust not. Those who urge the reception of this petition, which is from the Society of Friends, have spoken most highly |
