Imágenes de páginas
[blocks in formation]

lished, lying principally west of the Mississippi, and on the banks of it, and adjoining the Gulf of Mexico, without being under any restriction in this particular, will be the place in which slaves will be smuggled in, if smuggled at all. They could not be smuggled into Arkansas till they had been conveyed three hundred miles through Louisiana.

The natural increase will be the same, whether in one part of the Union or the other; or, if it would be greater in the Western country, it would be the consequence of an ameliorated condition, and therefore not to be regretted, as the cause of humanity would thereby be promoted. This will be obvious to those who have had an opportunity of comparing the slavery on the Atlantic seaboard with that of the Western country. On the seaboard, for from fifty to eighty miles into the country, through the whole of the Southern States, the soil is sterile-and there it is that there is the greatest proportion of slaves, sub jected to the most lamentable state of degradation and misery. The produce is trifling and scanty; the market at the same time high. The slave is pinched and stinted, and allowed, in many instances, but his peck of corn per week for his whole subsistence. In the Western country the produce is abundant, and the market poor; the slave is there well fed and happy. The greatest kindness you can do a slave, is to tempt his master to remove with him to the Western country. The master will be bettered in his own condition at the same time, and this also will increase his liberality to his slaves. All travellers, from the Atlantic to the West, are struck with the increased amelioration in their condition, as they



said, principally by the French and Spanish people, at the time of its cession to the United States. The population now pouring in there, consists of the hardy yeomanry of the North. It will soon be the case there, that the proportion of slaves and of slaveholders will be comparatively triffing. Can any man believe that in such case they will not there do as has been done in the other States? The majority having the power, will they not compel the minority gradually to rid themselves of this species of property? I believe, sir, it is not in the nature of man to do otherwise. Were no restriction to be imposed on Missouri, even there it is as fixed as fate that slavery must, ere long, be abolished. If, then, it were proper to consult the cause of humanity only, in disregard of every other consideration, we should encourage the dispersion of the slaves now in the Union to the utmost of our power.

What, sir, would be the inevitable consequence of cooping them up within certain limits? In such case the poorer whites would emigrate; the slaves and slaveholders would remain. While the free population would remain stationary, or diminish, the slaves would increase. The result of which would be, as it ever has been, that the slave must be treated with more rigor; he must be kept ignorant, be humbled, and debased; for, sir, people must and will consult their own safety. If the slaves should become sufficiently numerous to render it possible to regain their freedom, if they are not degraded to the character of brutes, they will be tempted to combine and destroy their oppressors. In such cases the white people dare not admit of the emancipation of slaves, lest it should afford an opportunity to the emancipated, by means of obstruction and observation, to become capable of heading and exciting the slaves against their masters. Hence, in some States, emancipation has been prohibited by law. The condition of a slave in such cases is wretched, indeed.

This, then, sir, is not a question which ought to be decided under the apprehension that it will increase the horrors of slavery. If it affects the question, it is wholly the other way.

But, sir, there is another point of view in which I would beg my friends to look at this subject. In the degree in which you increase the proportion of the free beyond that of the slave population, in the same ratio you increase the chance for emancipation, final and total. To prove this, we need only to look at some of our sister States. The majority, consisting of non-slaveholding individuals, in those States, has compelled the minority gradually to let go their hold upon this species of property. New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware, in this way, have nearly rid themselves of this reproach upon humanity. The best mode, therefore, to promote the cause of a final emancipation, would be to suffer the slaves to be scattered thinly over the Western States. These States will be peopled, in much the largest proportion, by those who do not, and who are too poor to hold slaves. It is the laboring class of the community, and the in-stipulation relative to their internal police or mu-dustrious yeomanry of our country, who will emigrate thither. The men of wealth, and those are principal slaveholders, will not remove. Hence, the case in the Western country, as it respects the slaves, will be perfectly similar to that which brought about emancipation in the States before mentioned.

In Missouri it is said that about one-fifth of the population are slaves. These were held, it is

As to the question, which has been agitated with so much zeal, relative to the power of the United States, on the admission of a new State, to cause a stipulation to be agreed to, preventing slavery or requiring its gradual abolition, I can entertain_no doubt. We certainly have this power. The Territories are under the absolute control of the United States. We have the power to admit them into the Union as States or not. Before admitting them, we may require any

nicipal regulations that we please, as a condition on which we will agree to their admission. We could not require anything, I admit, repugnant to the fundamental articles of the Federal Government-such as that they should not be represented in the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States, and have Electors of President, &c., the same as the other States. Whatever any other State would be entitled to by the


Arkansas Territory.

H. of R.

wit, the slaveholding and the non-slaveholding sections, have an equal right to its enjoyment. By permitting slavery in every part of it, the non-slaveholding portion will be deprived of it; if not entirely, certainly in a very great degree. On the other hand, if the people of the South cannot carry their slaves with them when they emigrate, the benefit will be equally lost to them. We must, then, go on as we have begun ; admitting some States with, and some without, any restriction. We have already admitted Louisiana, lying principally west of the Mississippi, without any restriction, for the benefit of our Southern brethren. We have now decided to admit Missouri, with the restriction, with a view, in some measure, I trust, to the benefit of our Northern brethren. Why may we not continue in the same way, admitting States off against the non-slaveholding States, westerly, with the restriction, and off against the slaveholding States, without it.

express provisions of the Federal Constitution, we could not deny to a newly admitted State. Nothing will now prevent an agreement with any of the individual States in the Union as to any municipal regulation, deemed proper or ne cessary for the use of any portion of the citizens of the Union-and certainly the same may be stipulated for on the admission of a new State, as a condition of its admission. Gentlemen have said that, although we might compel them to stipulate in their constitutions that slavery should not be tolerated, yet, nothing would prevent their altering their constitution after such admission; and that we should have no means of enforcing the regulation-and that we cannot make stipulations that we cannot enforce. In this I believe there is a mistake. It is true, perhaps, that the United States could not, by any act of legislation, enforce the observance of the regulation. But, sir, suppose it should be attempted to hold an individual as a slave, in contravention of such a stipulation, would be not, and could he not, apply Gentlemen have said, that people of the North to the courts of the United States, by habeas cor-emigate to the South, and readily assimilate, and pus, or otherwise, and obtain his liberation?

become slaveholders; and that the existence of These regulations are no novelty. They have slavery forms no objection. This may be the heretofore been adopted on the admission of new case, and undoubtedly is, with certain individuals, States. Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, have been and particularly such as are able to hold slaves. subjected to them. Besides the regulations pro- But it is far from being the case generally. The hibiting slavery, we have been in the constant people from the North, who emigrate, are the inhabit of requiring other stipulations of the newly dustrious yeomanry, who till the earth with their admitted States. We have required that they own hands, and are seldom, if ever, able to purshould not tax the lands of the United States, chase slaves; and whose spirit of freedom would and the lands sold by the United States, for five revolt at the idea of being compelled to work years after the sale. Now, sir, the right to levy side by side with slaves. For proof of this, look and collect taxes is an attribute of sovereignty at the States of Ohio and Kentucky. The ferwhich could no more be abridged, on the admistility of soil and congeniality of climate, for agrision of a new State, than the power to admit slavery. If we can require stipulations for the one, we can for the other and our right hereto fore has never been doubted to do either. Should a State, after its admission, in contravention of the compact, as it may be called, proceed to tax United States lands, or lands sold by the United States, before the expiration of the five years, the United States could do nothing by way of enGentlemen abhor sectional lines of demarcaforcing it otherwise than by a resort to the tribution between the different descriptions of popula nals of law for relief.

cultural purposes, is in favor of Kentucky; yet you can scarcely find a Northern man in that State; while Ohio is almost exclusively peopled from the North, and has increased in population much faster than Kentucky. There cannot possibly be any other reason for this, unless it is that Kentucky is a slaveholding, and Ohio a nonslaveholding State.

tion in the Union, and so do I. When they can This, then, is the power which we have, and be avoided, I would avoid them. But we have can exercise whenever we deem it proper. In them in relation to this subject already. The some cases we have exercised it in relation to the line is distinctly marked. It is, I confess, one of inhibition of slavery; and in others not. We our misfortunes. But, sir, it is unavoidable. We have, I trust, exercised the power in cases which have heretofore found it necessary and proper to have properly required it; and again have omit-observe it in forming States north of the Ohio, ted it in cases in which it should have been omitted. It is, then, on the admission of a new State, a question, solely, of expediency and policy. We are now to determine whether we shall exercise this power in this case.

We should consider that we have, by our common and joint funds, acquired a large tract of vacant territory west of the Mississippi; that it is valuable to our country as furnishing a fertile region for the citizens of our country to resort to for the purpose of bettering their conditions, acquiring property, and providing for their children. The two great sections of the Union, to

without admitting, and south of the Ohio with, the admission of slaves. Having so begun, we must continue on. And in doing so, we must, as in the case of every other legislative act, exercise a sound discretion, and do that which shall best comport with the demands of the different and varying interests of the different portions of the Union.

I am, therefore, in favor of no restriction in relation to Arkansas, although I was, and still am, in favor of adopting it in relation to Missouri. The settled part of Arkansas will be south of the southerly line of Kentucky. In my opinion, to

[blocks in formation]

do justice to our Southern brethren, they ought to have permission to carry with them their slaves, even further north. But as Missouri extends south to this line, and we could not admit slavery in any part, and not in the whole, there seemed to be no alternative but to confine the admission of slavery to the south of that line.

The gentlemen of the North need have no fears, I believe, that the slaveholding States will become predominant, and prevent our doing all that it may be proper for us to do to prevent this growing evil. We now have the numerical force; we have a majority of ten or fifteen in the representation on this floor as a guarantee against it. This majority will increase upon the taking of every census. By recurring to the census of 1800 and 1810, it will be seen that the increase is from 25 to 30 per cent. against the slaveholding section: Add to this, that the slave portion of the increase gives but three-fifths of the increase to the weight in this House.


therein, and held there for a period not exceeding nine months."

This motion was negatived without a division; and,

LOR's amendment, was determined in the negaThe question being then taken on Mr. TAYtive-yeas 86, nays 90, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Adams, Allen, Anderson, of Pa., Barber of Ohio, Bateman, Bennett, Boden, Boss, Clagett, Comstock, Crafts, Cushman, Darlington, Drake, Ellicott, Folger, Fuller, Gage, Gilbert, Hale, Hall of Delaware, Hasbrouck, Hendricks, Herkimer, Herrick, Heister, Hitchcock, Hopkinson, Hostetter, Hubbard, Hunter, Huntington, Irving of New York, Kirtland, Lawyer, Lincoln, Linn, Livermore, W. Maclay, W. P. Maclay, Marchand, Mason of Rhode Island, Merrill, Mills, Robert Moore, Samuel Moore, Morton, Moseley, Murray, Jer. Nelson, Ogle, Orr, Palmer, Patterson, Pawling, Pitkin, Rice, Rich, Richards, Rogers, Ruggles, Sampson, Savage, Schuyler, Scudder, Sergeant, Seybert, Sherwood, Silsbee, Southard, Spencer, Tallmadge, Tarr, Taylor, Terry, Tompkins, Townsend, Upham, Wallace, Wendover, Westerlo, Whiteside, Wilkin, Williams of Connecticut, Williams of New York, and Wilson of Pennsylvania.

Neither have gentlemen any cause of alarm for fear that the gentlemen of the South will be for the repeal of the law prohibiting the importation of slaves. They have hitherto manifested as much of a disposition to put a final stop to that nefarious practice as could have been wished-tin, Baldwin, Ball, Barbour of Virginia, Bassett, Bayand no doubt can be entertained of the steadiness of that disposition.

NAYS-Messrs Abbot, Anderson of Kentucky, Aus

ley, Beecher, Bloomfield, Blount, Byran, Burwell, Butler of Louisiana, Campbell, Cobb, Colston, Cook, We have no right to interfere in opposition to Crawford, Cruger, Culbreth, Davidson, Desha, Earle, the determination of the slaveholding States fur- Edwards, Ervin of South Carolina, Fisher, Floyd, ther than the Constitution has authorized. These Garnett, Hall of North Carolina, Harrison, Hogg, States were sovereign, and could make what regu- Holmes, Johnson of Virginia, Johnson of Kentucky, lations they would as to slavery. They have Jones, Kinsey, Lewis, Little, Lowndes, McLane of delegated to us no other authority than that of Delaware, McLean of Illinois, McCoy, Marr, Mason of Massachusetts, Mercer, Middleton, Hugh Nelson, prohibiting further importation, after a certain Thomas M. Nelson, Nesbitt, New, Newton, Ogden, period. It is then an evil which we have not Owen, Parrott, Pegram, Peter, Pindall, Pleasants, created, nor does it even exist and continue by Poindexter, Porter, Quarles, Reed of Maryland, Reed our permission. We are, in fact, by the most of Georgia, Rhea, Ringgold, Robertson, Sawyer, Settle, solemn obligation, precluded from the right to Shaw, Simkins, Slocumb, Samuel Smith, Bal. Smith, molest those States in the exercise of this power. Alexander Smith, J. S. Smith, Speed, Stewart of North Not having the power to prevent it, the iniquity Carolina, Storrs, Strother, Stuart of Maryland, Terrell, cannot lie at our doors. There is no ground on Trimble, Tucker of Virginia, Tucker of South Carwhich we can demand to be their conscience-olina, Tyler, Walker of North Carolina, Walker of keepers. They must answer for the wrong, and Kentucky, Whitman, and Williams of North Carolina.

not we.

Under this view of the subject, I shall deem it my duty not to vote in favor of the restriction in relation to Arkansas-at the same time I shall go any reasonable length with those who would insist upon the restriction in relation to Missouri.

Mr. TAYLOR, then, for reasons which he stated, modified the amendment, to read as follows:

"That neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall hereafter be introduced into the said Territory, otherwise than for the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted."

Mr.MERCER, after earnestly, and at some length, supporting his views on this subject, moved to amend the proposed amendment, by adding thereto the following proviso:

Mr. TAYLOR then, after stating that he thought it important that some line should be designated beyond which slavery should not be permitted, &c., moved the following amendment as an additional section to the bill:

"That neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall hereafter be introduced into any part of the Territories of the United States, lying north of 36 degrees and 30 minutes of north latitude."

Mr. LIVERMORE conceived this proposition to be made in the true spirit of compromise, which ought to be met, but suggested a different line.

Mr. RHEA Opposed this amendment, and spoke against any amendment or restriction of the sort, as unconstitutional, and inconsistent with the "Provided, That nothing herein shall divest the in-treaty with France, which transferred to us the habitants of Arkansas of their rights of property in the territory west of the Mississippi. slaves which they now hold, or the natural increase thereof; nor to entitle to his freedom any slave carried

Mr. OGLE was against the amendment, because opposed to any compromise by which slavery in

[blocks in formation]

any of the Territories should be recognised or sanctioned by Congress.

Mr. STROTHER thought it would be better to withdraw the amendment, and bring forward the principle in a separate bill, and argued in support of his view of the question.

Mr. HARRISON assented to the expediency of establishing some such line of discrimination; but, for reasons which he explained at large, proposed a different one, by way of amendment to the amendment, as follows:

"That all that part of the present Territory of Missouri, lying north of a line to be run due west from the mouth of the river Des Moines to the territorial boundary of the United States, shall form a part of the Territory of Michigan; and the laws now in force in the said Territory as well as the ordinance of Congress prohibiting slavery or involuntary servitude in said Territory of Michigan, shall be in force in that part of the Missouri Territory lying north of the said east and west line."

Mr. BARBOUR, of Virginia, was opposed to Mr TAYLOR'S amendment, and to all others of a similar character; and spoke with much earnestness against the proposition at some length, as partial and inexpedient; arguing that, if the principle was wrong in itself, (and the question had been discussed on principle alone,) it ought not to be withheld from one part of the Territory and applied to another; that it was legislating partially, by applying a rule to one portion and a different rule to another portion of citizens having equal rights and placed under similar circumstances. If the rule was wrong at the 25th degree of latitude, it was equally so at the 40th. He argued that it was as impolitic as it was unjust to draw this line; it was proper to let a future Congress act on it, as should then appear expedient; and this opinion, as well as others which he advanced, he maintained at some length.

Mr. ANDERSON, of Kentucky, gave the amendment his unqualified disapprobation. It was no compromise-its friends asked everything and gave nothing-what they got now was insured to them, and what they conceded now would not be binding on a future Congress, and the same principle might be extended by hereafter inserting it in the constitution of Arkansas when it should become a State. Furthermore, the principle was contrary to the Treaty of Cession with France, and he could not agree to any compromise, even if it were fairly proposed; all of which views he strenuously enforced.

H. OF R.

Mr. COBB rose to put an end at once to a debate, which he said was disagreeable to one part of the House, however agreeable it might be to the other; and the end of which, if unchecked, could not be seen, as it was impossible to foretell what number of amendments might be presented. He therefore called for the previous question, to obtain at once a decision on the engrossment of the bill.

The previous question was refused by the House-ayes 67, noes 74; when

Mr. TAYLOR, having stated that he perceived from the debate, as well as from conversation, that it was not probable any line would be agreed on by the House, or any compromise of opinion be effected, withdrew his amendment. The bill was then ordered to be engrossed, and read a third time.

SATURDAY, February 20.

Mr. RICH, from the Committee of Claims, to which was referred the bill from the Senate, entitled "An act for the relief of Rees Hill," reported the same without amendment, and the bill was committed to a Committee of the Whole, to which is committed the report of the Committee of Claims, made at the last session, on the case of Mary Sears and William B. Stokes.

Mr. HUBBARD, from the Committee on so much of the Public Accounts and Expenditures as relate to the Post Office Department, made a detailed report, accompanied with sundry documents and statements, which were received; when Mr. H. reported a bill, to amend an act, entitled "An act regulating the Post Office Establishment," passed the 30th of April, 1810; which was read twice, and committed to a Committee of the Whole.

Mr. NEWTON, from the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures, to which was referred the amendments proposed by the Senate to the bill, entitled "An act regulating passenger ships and vessels," made a report on the said amendments; which was read, and ordered to lie on the table.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Kentucky, from the Committee on Military Affairs, made a report on the petition of Ruth Reed; which was read; when Mr. J. reported a bill for the relief of the heirs of William Reed, deceased; which was read twice, and ordered to be engrossed and read a third

time to-morrow.

Mr. JOHNSON, from the same committee, also reported a bill in addition to an act, supplementary to an act, entitled "An act for the relief of Thomas Wilson;" which was read twice, and ordered to be engrossed and read a third time to-morrow.

Mr. LIVERMORE replied, and argued at length to show that the compromise was fair and liberal; also that the Treaty of Cession could not bind Congress in this case, as it was out of the power of the Government to admit States into the Union by treaty; that the Territory was purchased, and it was now competent for the Gov- Mr. PLEASANTS submitted a joint resolution ernment to dispose of it in any manner whatso-prescribing the manner in which the vessels of ever, either to sell it, recede, &c.

Mr. BEECHER followed in a speech of near an hour in length, entering into an inquiry into the whole subject presented by the various propositions brought forward.

15th CoN. 2d SESS.-41

the Navy of the United States shall hereafter be named; [directing that all public vessels now building or to be built, shall be named by the Secretary of the Navy, under the direction of the President, according to the following rule, viz:

[blocks in formation]

Ships of the first class to be called after the States of the Union; those of the second class, after the Rivers of the United States, and those of the third class, after the principal Cities and Towns; taking care that no two vessels in the Navy bear the same name.]

The resolution was twice read, and ordered to be engrossed for a third reading to-day.

The House resumed the consideration of the bill from the Senate supplementary to the acts concerning the coasting trade; and the amendments to which were ordered to be engrossed, and, with the bill, to be read a third time.

The bill establishing a separate Territorial government in the Arkansas Territory was read the third time, and passed.

BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. The House then again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the subject of the Bank of the United States, the motion to repeal the charter of the bank being still under consideration.

Mr. LOWNDES, of South Carolina, said, that the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. PINDALL,) who had last addressed the Committee, had discussed the policy of the law which chartered the bank, the motives of Congress in passing it, and those of the Executive Government in the measures which had been adopted for carrying it into effect. He would not enter into these topics. The subject was large enough, without digression, to occupy their whole attention for the time which it would be reasonable to appropriate to this debate. If the reputation of the fourteenth Congress, or of the late Administration, could be impaired by observations or circumstances like those which had been adduced, he would say of both, that they were not worth defending. In the course of his remarks, indeed, it was not improbable that he might advert to facts which would repel the conclusions of the gentleman from Virginia, but he would not deviate from the strict line of his argument, to engage in so useless a controversy.

The committee, of which he had had the honor to be a member, had expressed an opinion, in respect to the first operations of the bank, correct enough, perhaps, in its general principle, but erroneous, as it seemed to him, in its application. They say, "that the bank could have proceeded gradually, growing with the growth, and strengthening with the strength of the nation, as it 'emerged from the evils of the flood of paper 'issued from the local institutions. The bank 'could have felt its way, and increased its means ' with the increasing demands of the country. 'Such a cautious proceeding would have enabled it to render invaluable service in checking the 'issue of State banks, and bringing them to the 'alternative of avowed bankruptcy or to the permanent resumption of specie payments." He was not disposed to deny, that, while a discredited currency was circulated through the country, while the excessive issues of bank paper (of which the war had been the cause or the apology) con

[ocr errors]


tinued to resist the introduction of real money, the committee were right in supposing that it was the interest of the National Bank to commence its operations slowly, or to postpone them. It was its interest to leave it to the Government to fight the battles against depreciation, and to come in afterwards as a partaker of the victory. Even after the 20th February, 1817, the bank might have pursued the cautious policy of withholding its accommodations from the Government and the people, until the reduction of other paper had made its issues necessary and safe. It might have preferred its interest to its duty. The State banks, unable to comply with the requisitions of Congress, which demanded from them the resumption of specie payments, must have lost their credit with the community. The Government, indeed, might have been embarrassed, the public debtors distressed, and the State institutions have been brought "to the alternative of avowed bankruptcy," but these competitors for public favor and employment would have been removed, and the National Bank would have entered into the full enjoyment of the monopoly which the ruin of every other institution would have prepared. This might have been its interest. But there were other interests to be consultedthose of the Government and the people. The bank had not been established for the purpose of giving to its stockholders the harvest which such a policy might provide. It was the instrument by whose use he hoped to secure the resumption of specie payments-constructed, not for its own sake, but for ours. The act of the Legislature and the proceedings of the Treasury Department would show how incompatible with the objects of its institution would have been that postponement of its operations, or that gradual commencement of them, which was recommended now, when the difficulties of the time were forgotten. The fourteenth Congress was aware that a narrow view of its exclusive interest might induce the National Bank to adopt the policy which the committee had described. The act which they passed provided that, as soon as the amount of the first subscription ($8,400,000) should be received, the bank should thenceforth commence and continue its operations. The twenty-second section reserved to Congress the power, if it should not go into operation before the first Monday in April, (at which time the third instalment was not due,) to declare its charter void. This was the measure of the Legislature to secure the early operation of the bank. Those of the Treasury Department were in entire consonance with its principle.

He must ask the indulgence of the House while he read some extracts from two letters of the Secretary of the Treasury. In a letter to the commissioners for receiving subscriptions, (dated August 15, 1816,) the Secretary says, "It is, indeed, of high importance to the people, as well as to the Government, that the Bank of the United Stares should be in an organized and active state before the 20th of February next, when the paper of the State banks which have

« AnteriorContinuar »