« AnteriorContinuar »
"The Territories belong to the United States as one people, one nation, and are to be disposed of for the common benefit of all, according to the principles of the Constitution. Each State, as a member of the Confederacy, has a right to a voice in forming the rules and regulations for the government of the Territories; but the different sections-North, South, East and Westhave no such right. It is no violation of Southern rights to prohibit Slavery."-Cong. Globe, Appendix, vol. 22, part 1, page 869.
"I have already had occasion to remark, that at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, there were twelve (slave States), and six of them have since abolished slavery. This fact shows that the cause of freedom has steadily and firmly advanced, while slavery has receded in the same ratio. We all look forward with confidence to the time when Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri, and probably North Carolina and Tennessee, will adopt one gradual system of emancipation, under the operation of which those States must, in process of time, become free."
And again, on the same page, speaking of a proposition to amend the Constitution, so as to preserve an "equilibrium "in point of numbers between free and slave States, he says:
"Then, sir, the proposition of the Senator from South Carolina is entirely impracticable. It is also inadmissible, if practicable. It would revolutionize the fundamental principle of the Government. It would destroy the great principle of popular equality, which must necessarily form the basis of all free institutions. It would be a retrograde movement in an age of progress, that would astonish the world."-Cong. Globe, Appendix, vol. 22, part 1, page 871.
MAY RIGHTFULLY EXCLUDE SLAVES
On the 13th of March, 1850, in the speech already quoted from, Mr. Douglas said:
"But you say that we propose to prohibit by law your emigrating to the Territories with your property. We propose no such thing. We recognize your right, in common with our own, to emigrate to the Territories with your property, and there to hold and enjoy it in subordination to the laws you may find in force in the country. These laws, in some respects, differ from our own, as the laws of the various States of this Union vary on some points from the laws of each other. Some species of property are excluded by law in most of the States as well as Territories, as being unwise, immoral, or contrary to the principles of sound public policy. For instance, the banker is prohibited from emigrating to Minnesota, Oregon or California with his bank. The bank may be property by the laws of New York, but ceases to be so when taken into a State or Territory where banking is prohib
ited by the local law. So, ardent spirits, whisky, brandy,
and all the intoxicating drinks, are recognized and considered as property in most of the States, if not all of them; but no citizen, whether from the North or South, can take this species of property with him, and hold, sell, or use it at his pleasure, in all the Territories, because it is prohibited by the local law-in Oregon, by the statutes of the Territory, and in the Indian country by the Acts of Congress. Nor can a man go there and take and hold his slave, for the same reason. These laws, and many others involving similar principles, are directed against no section, and impair the rights of no State of the Union. They are laws against the introduction, sale and use of specific kinds of property, whether brought from the North or the South, or from foreign countries."-Cong. Globe, Appendix, vol. 22, part 1, page 371.
"But, sir, I do not hold the doctrine that to exclude any species of property by law from any Territory, is a violation of any right to property. Do you not exclude banks from most of the Territories ? Do you not exclude whisky from being introduced into large portions of the territory of the United States? Do you not exclude gaming-tables, which are property, recognized as such in the States where they are tolerated? And has any one contended that the exclusion of gambling-tables, and the exclusion of ardent spirits, was a violation of any constitutional privilege or right? And yet it is the case
in a large portion of the territory of the United States; but there is no outcry against that, because it is the prohibition of a specific kind of property, and not a prohibition against any section of the Union. Why, sir, our laws now prevent a tavern-keeper from going into some of the territories of the United States and taking a bar with him, and using and selling spirits there. The law also prohibits certain other descriptions of business from being carried on in the Territories. I am not, therefore, prepared to say that, under the Constitution, we have not the power to pass laws excluding Negro Slavery from the Territories. It involves the same principles."and 1116, vol. 21, Cong. Globe, 1849–50. Speech of Senator Douglas, June 3d, 1850, pages 1115,
On the same day, and in the same speech, Mr. Douglas referred to the Wilmot Proviso resolutions, passed by the Illinois Legislature, thus:
"My hands are tied upon one isolated point." "A SENATOR-Can you not break loose?"
"MR. DOUGLAS-I have no desire to break loose. My opinions are my own, and I express them freely. My votes belong to those that sent me here, and to whom I am responsible. I have never differed with my constituency during seven years' service in Congress, except upon one solitary question. And even on that, I have no Constitutional difficulties, and have previously twice given the same vote, under peculiar circumstances; which is now required at my hands. I have no desire, therefore, to break loose from the instruction."-Cong. Globe, Appendix, vol. 22, part 1, page 373.
SLAVERY IN NEW MEXICO.
In the Senate, on the 12th day of February, 1850, on the subject of Slavery in the Territory of New Mexico, Mr. Douglas said:
"If the question is controverted here, I am ready to enter into the discussion of that question at any time, upon a reasonable notice, and to show that, by the constituted authority and constitutional authority of Mexico,
Slavery was prohibited in Mexico at the time of the
acquisition, and that prohibition was acquired by us with the soil, and that when we acquired the territory, we acquired it with that attached to it-that covenant running with the soil-and that must continue, unless removed by competent authority. And because there was a prohibition thus attached to the soil, I have always thought it was an unwise, unnecessary, and unjustifiable course on the part of the people of the free States, to require Congress to put another prohibition on the top of that one. It has been the strongest argument that I have ever urged against the prohibition of Slavery in the Territories, that it was not necessary for the accomplishment of their object."-Cong. Globe, vol. 22, part 1, page 343.
SLAVERY A MERE QUESTION OF DOLLARS AND
Mr. Douglas made a southern tour, stopping at Shortly after the Illinois election of 1858, St. Louis, Memphis, and New Orleans, and addressing the people at those places on politi cal topics. He spoke at Memphis, on the 29th of November, and the following is an extract from his speech as reported phonographically in the Memphis Avalanche:
"Whenever a Territory has a climate, soil and productions, making it the interest of the inhabitants to encourage slave property, they will pass a slave code and give it encouragement. Whenever the climate, soil and productions preclude the possibility of slavery being profitable, they will not permit it. You come right back to the principle of dollars and cents. I do not care where the immigration in the southern country comes from; if old Joshua R. Giddings should raise a colony in Ohio and settle down in Louisiana, he would be the strongest advocate of Slavery in the whole South; he would find, when he got there, his opinion of Slavery would be very much modified; he would find on those sugar plantations that it was not a question between the white man and the negro but between the negro and the crocodile. He would say that between the negro and the crocodile he took the side of the negro; but between the negro and the white man, he would go for the white man."
"I, in common with the Democracy of Illinois, accept the Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the Dred Scott case, as an authoritative exposition of the Constitution. Whatever limitations the Constitution, as expounded by the courts, imposes on the authority of a Territoria Legislature, we cheerfully recognize and respect in conformity with that decision. Slaves are recognized as property, and placed on an equal footing with all other property. Hence, the owner of slaves-the same as the owner of any other species of property-has a right to remove to a Territory and carry his property with him."
The clause in the Constitution authorizing Congress to make all needful rules and regulations for the govern ment of the territory and other property of the United States, applies only to territory within the chartered limits of some one of the States when they were Colonies of Great Britain, and which was surrendered by the British Government to the old confederation of the States, in the treaty of peace. It does not apply to territory acquired by the present Federal Government, by treaty or conquest, from a foreign nation.
The United States, under the present Constitution, cannot acquire territory to be held as a colony, to be governed at its will and pleasure. But it may acquire territory which, at the time, has not a population that fits it to become a State, and may govern it as a Territory until it has a population which, in the judgment of Congress, entitles it to be admitted as a State of the Union.
"While it remains a Territory, Congress may legislate over it within the scope of its constitutional powers, in relation to citizens of the United States, and may establish a Territorial Government, and the form of this local government must be regulated by the discretion of Congress, but with powers not exceeding those which Congress itself, by the Constitution, is authorized to exercise over citizens of the United States, in respect to their rights of persons or rights of property.
"The Territory thus acquired, is acquired by the people of the United States for their common and equal benefit, through their agent and trustee-the Federal Government. Congress can exercise no power over the rights of persons or property of a citizen in the Territory which is prohibited by the Constitution. The Government and the citizen, whenever the Territory is open to settlement, both enter with their respective rights defined and limited by the Constitution.
"Congress has no right to prohibit the citizens of any particular State or States, from taking up their homes there, while it permits citizens of other States to do so. Nor has it a right to give privileges to one class of citizens which it refuses to another. The Territory is acquired for their equal and common benefit, and, if open to any, it must be open to all upon equal and the same
"Every citizen has a right to take with him into
In the Senate, on the 23d of February, 1859, in a debate with Jeff. Davis, Mr. Douglas said:
THE DRED SCOTT DECISION.
tution of the United States recognizes as property.
"The Constitution of the United States recognizes slaves as property, and pledges the Federal Government to protect it. And Congress cannot exercise
any more authority over property of that description, than it may constitutionally exercise over property of any other kind.
THE decision or opinion of the Supreme | the Territory any article of property which the ConstiCourt of the United States on the question of Slavery in the Territories, and the power of Territorial Legislatures to exclude it, enters so largely into the political questions and discussions of the day, that it becomes desirable to know what the court decided. The following extracts will show the points of greatest impor-zen of the United States from taking with him his slaves tance in the decision. The case will be found at length in Vol. 19 of Howard's Reports. The Opinion of the Court, delivered by Chief Justice Taney, is preceded by head-notes of the Re-him no title to freedom.” porter, intended as a syllabus or epitome of the points decided, and from which we make the following extract (page 395):
"The act of Congress, therefore, prohibiting a citiis an exercise of authority over private property which when he removes to the Territory in question to reside, is not warranted by the Constitution, and the removal of the plaintiff, by his owner, to that Territory, gave
"I do not put Slavery on a different footing from
other property. I recognize it as property under what
is understood to be the decision of the Supreme Court. I argue that the owner of slaves has the same right to remove to the Territories and carry his slave property with him as the owner of any other species of property, and hold the same, subject to such local laws as the Territorial Legislature may constitutionally pass; and if any person shall feel aggrieved by such local legislation, he may appeal to the Supreme Court to test the validity of such laws. I recognize slave property to be on an equality with all other property, and apply the same rules to it. I will not apply one rule to slave property and another to all other kind of property."-Congressional Globe, 1858–9, part 2, page 1256.
[Senator Benjamin, of Louisiana, in a speech delivered on the 22d of May, 1560, states that this syllabus was prepared and written out by Chief Justice Taney himself.]
of the Court, where, after deciding that ConFollowing these notes we have the opinion gress had no power to prohibit Slavery in a Territory, the chief justice proceeds as follows (pages 450 and 451):
"The powers over person and property of which we speak, are not only not granted to Congress, but are in express terms denied, and they are forbidden to exercise them. And this prohibition is not confined to the States, but the words are general, and extend to the whole territory over which the Constitution gives it power to legislate, including those portions of it remaining under territorial government, as well as that covered by States. It is a total absence of power every. where within the dominion of the United States, and places the citizens of a Territory, so far as these rights are concerned, on the same footing with citizens of the States, and guards them as firmly and plainly against any inroads which the General Government might attempt, under the plea of implied or incidental powers. And if Congress itself cannot do this-if it is beyond the powers conferred on the Federal Government-it will be admitted, we presume, that it could not authorize a territorial government to exercise them. It could confer no power on any local government established by its authority, to violate the provisions of the Constitution. "It seems, however, to be supposed that there is a difference between property in a slave and other property, and that different rules may be applied to it in expounding the Constitution of the United States. And the laws and usages of nations, and the writings of eminent jurists upon the relation of master and slave, and their mutual rights and duties, and the powers which governments may exercise over it, have been dwelt upon in the argument.
"But, in considering the question before us, it must be borne in mind that there is no law of nations standing between the people of the United States and their government, and interfering with their relation to each other. The powers of the government, and the rights of the citizen under it, are positive and practical regu lations, plainly written down. The people of the United
States have delegated to it certain enumerated powers, and forbidden it to exercise others. It has no power over the person or property of a citizen but what the citizens of the United States have granted. And no laws or usages of other nations, or reasoning of statesmen or jurists upon the relations of master and slave, can enlarge the powers of the Government, or take from the citizens the rights they have reserved. And if the Constitution recognizes the right of property of the master in a slave, and makes no distinction between that description of property and other property owned by a citizen, no tribunal, acting under the authority of the United States, whether it be legislative, executive, or judicial, has a right to draw such a distinction, or deny to it the benefit of the provisions and guaranties which have been provided for the protection of private property against the encroachments of the Government.
IN 1859, the Territorial Legislature of New Mexico passed "An Act to provide for the protection of property in slaves." This act, without, in terms, legalizing Slavery in the Territory, proceeds at great length and particularity to protect slave-masters in the possession of their slaves, by enacting severe penalties against "stealing" or "enticing" them away, against inciting them to discontent" or "insurrection," etc. The spirit of the Act may be gathered from the following extracts from its provisions:
SLAVERY IN NEW MEXICO.
"SEC. 20.-Any slave who shall conduct himself dis orderly in a public place, or shall give insolent language, or signs, to any free white person, may be arrested and taken by such person before a justice of the peace, who, upon trial and conviction in a summary manner, shall cause his constable to give such slave any number of stripes upon his or her bare back, not exceeding thirty
"SEC. 21.-When any slave shall be convicted of any crime or misdemeanor for which the penalty assigned by law is in whole or in part the fine of a sum of money, the court passing sentence upon him may, in its discretion, substitute for such fine corporal punishment, or
branding or stripes.
"SEC. 24.-Any slave, free negro or mulatto who shall commit or attempt to commit a rape upon the person of any white woman, shall, upon conviction thereof, suffer death.
"SEC. 25.-The Emancipation of Slaves within this Territory is totally prohibited."
PEONAGE, OR WHITE SERFDOM.
In January, 1859, the Territorial Legislature of New Mexico passed "an act amendatory of the law relative to contracts between masters and servants," from which we extract the following:
"SEC. 1. When any servant shall run away from the service of his master, he shall be considered as a fugitive from justice, and in such case it shall be the duty of all officers of the Territory, judicial or ministerial, on being informed that such persons are within the limits of their jurisdiction, to ascertain whether such persons are runaway servants or not, and if they ascertain that they are, said officers shall immediately arrest them and put them to work at public labor, or hire them out to any person, so that they may be employed, with security, until their masters shall be informed thereof, in order that they may demand them, and to whom they shall immediately be delivered.
"SEC. 2. Every person of this Territory, either a contracted servant according to the law of contracts, or engaged on trips, or as shepherds, shall be compelled to serve for the time stipulated for in the contract; and any servant so contracted who shall fail to serve by abandoning his master or property placed under his care, shall be held responsible for all costs and damages which through his neglect may result to the owner.
SEC. 4. No Court of this Territory shall have jurisdiction nor shall take cognizance of any cause for the correction that masters may give their servants for
"Now, as we have already said in an earlier part of this opinion, upon a different point, the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution. The right of traffic in it, like an ordinary article of merchandise and property, was guaranteed to the citizens of the United States in every State that might desire it, for twenty years. And the Government in express terms is pledged to protect it in all future time, if the slave escapes from its owner. This is done in plain words, too plain to be misunderstood. And no word can be found in the Constitution which gives Congress a greater power over slave property, or which entitles property of that kind to less protection than property of any other description. The only power conferred is the power, coupled with the duty, of guarding and protecting the owner in his rights."
neglect of their duties as servants, for they are conshould correct their neglect and faults; for as soldiers sidered as domestic servants to their masters, and they are punished by their chiefs, without the intervention of the civil authority, by reason of the salary they enjoy, an equal right should be granted those persons who pay their money to be served in the protection of their property: Provided, That such correction shall not be inflicted in a cruel manner with clubs or stripes."
On the 10th of May, 1860, Mr. Bingham, of Ohio, from the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives, reported
A bill to disapprove and declare null and void all Territorial acts or parts of acts, heretofore passed by the Legislative Assembly of New Mexico, which establish, protect, or legalize involuntary servitude, or Slavery, within said Territory, except as a punishment for crime, upon due conviction.
This bill passed the House the same day by the following vote:
YEAS. Messrs. Charles F. Adams, Aldrich, Alley, Ashley, Babbitt, Beale, Bingham, Blair, Blake, Brayton, Buffington, Burlingame, Burnham, Butterfield, Campbell, Carey, Case, Clark B. Cochrane, Colfax, Conkling, Covode, Dawes, Delano, Duell, Dunn, Edgerton, Edwards, Eliot, Ely, Farnsworth, Fenton, Ferry, Foster, Frank, French, Gooch, Grow, Gurley, Hale, Helmick, Hoard, Humphrey, Hutchins, Irvine, Junkin, Francis W. Kellogg, William Kellogg, Kenyon, Kilgore, Killinger, DeWitt C. Leach, Lee, Longnecker, Loomis, Lovejoy, Marston, McKean, McKnight, McPherson, Moorhead, Morse, Nixon, Olin, Palmer, Perry, Pettit, Porter, Potter, Rice, Christopher Robinson, Royce, Scranton, Sedgwick, Sherman, Somes, Spinner, Stanton, Stevens, William Stewart, Stratton, Tappan, Tompkins,__Train, Trimble, Vandever, Verree, Wade, Waldron, Walton, Cadwalader C. Washburn, Elihu B. Washburne, Israel Washburn, Wells, Wilson, Windom, Wood, and Woodruff.
All Republicans, 97.
NAYS.-Messrs. Green Adams, ADRAIN, Allen, Thomas L. Anderson, William C. Anderson, Ashmore, Avery, Barksdale, Barr, Barrett, Bocock, Bonham, Boyce, Branch, Bristow, Burch, Burnett, John B. Clark, Clopton, Cobb, John Cochrane, Cooper, Cox, James Craig, Crawford, Curry, H. Winter Davis, JOHN G. DAVIS, De Jarnette, Etheridge, Florence, Garnett, Gartrell, John T. Harris, HASKIN, Hawkins, Holman, Houston, Howard, Hughes, Jackson, Jenkins, Jones, Keitt, Kunkel, Lamar, Landrum, Larrabee, James M. Leach, Leake, Logan, Love, Charles D. Martin, McQueen, Miles, Millson, Montgomery, Sydenham Moore, Isaac N. Morris, Niblack, Pendleton, Peyton, Phelps, Pryor, Pugh, Reagan, Reynolds, RIGGS, James C. Robinson, Ruffin, SCHWARTZ, Scott, Simms, Singleton, William Smith, Stallworth, Stevenson, Stout, Taylor, Thayer, Thomas, Underwood, Vallangdigham, Vance, Webster, Whiteley, Winslow, Woodson, and Wright-89.
Democrats, in roman, 74; Americans, in italics, 8; Anti-Lecompton Democrats, in SMALL
CAPS, 5; Independent (Reynolds, in roman), 1; Republicans (Thayer, in roman), 1. Total, 89. This bill failed to pass the Senate.