Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

SLAVERY IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT.

Some of the largest purchasers in Maryland and Virginia for the cotton and sugar region located themselves at this point, fitted up their slavepens, and advertised in the leading journals of the Capital their readiness to buy and sell young and likely negroes. Vessels were regularly dispatched from Alexandria to New Orleans, laden with their human merchandise. So that, in the absence of manufactures, and of any but a petty retail trade, slaves were long a chief staple of the commerce, and certainly the leading export, of the American metropolis.

Under the slave laws, so hastily bolted by Congress, every negro or mulatto was presumptively a slave; and, if unable to indicate his master, or to establish specially his right to freedom, was liable to be arrested and imprisoned, advertised, and sold, in default of a claimant, to pay the costs of this worse than Algerine procedure; and, as Washington steadily increased in population and importance, the number of colored persons drifting thither from all quarters increased with it, until the business of arresting, detaining, advertising, and selling unowned negroes became a most lucrative perquisite of the Federal Marshal for the District, yielding him a net profit of many thousands of dollars per annum. The advertisements in The National Intelligencer, United States Telegraph, Globe, Union, etc., of negroes whom he had caught and caged, and, in default of an owner, was about to sell, were widely copied in both hemispheres, provoking comments by no means flattering to our country nor its institutions. The plumage of the American eagle was often ruffled by

143

criticisms and comparisons between these legal proceedings, under the shadow of our Capitol, and the harsher dealings of savages and heathen with strangers so luckless as to fall into their hands; and the point of these invidious comparisons was barbed by their undeniable justice.

Petitions for the Abolition of Slavery in the Federal District, or, at least, of the Slave-Trade so flourishing therein, had been from time immemorial presented to Congress, and treated with no more disrespect or disregard than petitions to legislative bodies usually encounter. One of these, presented in 1828, was signed by United States District Judge Cranch, and about one thousand more of the most respectable citizens of the District; but, while it was treated decorously, no decisive step was taken toward compliance with its prayer. As the distinctive Abolition movement gained strength in the North, and the excitement caused thereby rose higher in the Southespecially after the Message of Gen. Jackson, already quoted, urging that anti-Slavery agitation be made a penal offense-a more decisive hostility was resolved on by the champions of Slavery, under the lead of Mr. Calhoun.

On the presentation, by Mr. Fairfield, of Maine (December 16, 1835), of the petition of one hundred and seventy-two women, praying the Abolition of the Slave-Trade in the District, it was decisively laid on the table of the House; Yeas 180, Nays 31-the Nays all from the North, and mainly Whigs.

On the 18th, Mr Jackson, of Massachusetts, offered a similar petition from the citizens of the town of

Wrentham; and Mr. Hammond of South Carolina, moved that it be not received; which was met by a motion to lay on the table. This was rejected-Yeas 95, Nays 121. But, finally, a proposition that the petition and all motions regarding it be laid on the table was carried-Yeas 140; Nays 76.

[ocr errors][merged small]

Mr. Buchanan16 presented a memo"Resolved, That all the memorials which rial of the Caln (Pennsylvania) quar-sented to this House, praying for the abolihave been offered, or may hereafter be preterly meeting of Friends, asking for the same in substance as the above.

Though opposed to granting the prayer of the petition, he preferred its reference to a Select Committee or that on the District. But, finding that there were insurmountable obstacles to such a reference, he would move that the memorial be read, and that the prayer of the memorialists be rejected. The question being demanded on Mr. Buchanan's motion, it was carried by the decisive vote of

34 to 6.

Mr. Morris, of Ohio, soon after presented similar memorials from his State; whereupon Mr. Calhoun raised the question of reception, declaring "that the petitions just read contained a gross, false, and malicious slander on eleven States represented on this floor." "That Congress had no jurisdiction over the subject, no more in this District than in the State of South Carolina." After a long and spirited debate, mainly by Southern senators, Mr. Calhoun's motion to reject was defeated by a vote to receive the petition-Yeas 35, Nays 10, as follows:

"YEAS: Messrs. Benton, Brown, Buchanan, Olay, Clayton, Crittenden, Davis, Ewing of Illinois, Ewing of Ohio, Goldsborough, Grundy, Hendricks, Hill, Hubbard, Kent,

16 January 11, 1836.

tion of Slavery in the District of Columbia, and also the resolutions offered by an honorable member from Maine (Mr. Jarvis), with the amendment thereto, proposed by an honorable member from Virginia (Mr. Wise), may be submitted in relation to that subject, and every other paper or proposition that be referred to a Select Committee, with instructions to report that Congress has no constitutional authority to interfere in any way with the institution of Slavery in any of the States of this confederacy; and that, in the opinion of this House, Congress ought not to interfere in any way with Slavery in the District of Columbia, because it would be a violation of the public faith, unwise, impolitic, and dangerous to the Union; assigning such reasons for these conclusions as, in the judgment of the Committee, may be best calculated to enlighten the public mind, to repress agitation, to allay excitement, to sustain and preserve the just rights of the slave-holding States, and of the people of this District, and to reestablish harmony and tranquillity amongst the various sections of the Union."

After some demur by Mr. Hammond, of South Carolina, and Mr. Wise, of Virginia, the Previous Question was ordered on this resolve

Yeas 118, Nays 47. Mr. Vinton, of Ohio, now demanded a division of the resolve into three parts, which demand was sustained by the Chair; and the first proposition, requiring a reference of all memorials on this subject to a Select Committee, was carried-Yeas 174, Nays 48: the Nays all from the South. The second proposition, regarding Slavery

17 February 5, 1836.

CONGRESS REPRESSING AGITATION.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

145

117, Nays 68; the Nays being substantially, but not entirely, composed of the Whig members from the Free States.

in the States, was affirmed-Yeas This resolve was adopted-Yeas 201, Nays 7. The third proposition, affirming that Congress ought not to interfere in any way with Slavery in the District of Columbia," prevailed-Yeas 163, Nays 47-the Nays, of course, from the North. And the third clause, being now divided, the question was taken on the remaining part-"because it would be a violation of the public faith, unwise, impolitic, and dangerous to the Union"-and that was also affirmed-Yeas 129; Nays 74: the Nays being all from the North, and nearly all Whigs. The remainder of the proposition was then affirmed-Yeas 169; Nays 6. The Committee appointed under

the above resolution consisted of Messrs. Pinckney of South Carolina; Hamer of Ohio; Pierce of New Hampshire; Hardin of Kentucky; Jarvis of Maine; Owens of Georgia; Muhlenberg of Pennsylvania; Dromgoole of Virginia; and Turrill of New York-all Democrats, but Hardin, a Southern Whig. This Committee, in due season, reported, First, That Congress possesses no constitutional authority to interfere, in any way, with the institution of Slavery in any State of this confederacy. Secondly, That Congress ought not to interfere in any way with Slavery in the District of Columbia. And, "for the purpose of arresting agitation, and restoring tranquillity to the public mind," they recommended the adoption of this resolve:

Amazing as it may seem, this heroic treatment was not successful in "arresting agitation, and restoring tranquillity to the public mind;" so that, when this Congress met for the second session, it was found necessary to do the work all over again. Accordingly, Mr. Albert G. Hawes, (Democrat) of Kentucky, offered a resolution, providing:

"That all memorials, etc., on the subject of the abolition of Slavery, should be laid on the table, without being referred or printed,

and that no further action should be had

thereon."

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

The Previous Question having again been ordered, this resolve was "That all petitions, memorials, resolu- adopted-Yeas 122; Nays 74-the tions, propositions, or papers relating in any Nays, as before, mainly, if not enway to the subject of Slavery, or the aboli-tirely, the Whig members from the tion of Slavery, shall, without either being printed or referred, be laid upon the table." Free States.

18 January 18, 1837.

[ocr errors]

19 December 21, 1837.

At the next session,20 Mr. Charles A.'s resolves duly passed, as follows: G. Atherton, of New Hampshire, moved the following resolutions:

“Resolved, That this government is a government of limited powers; and that, by the Constitution of the United States, Congress has no jurisdiction whatever over the institution of Slavery in the several States of the confederacy.

Resolved, That the petitions for the abolition of Slavery in the District of Columbia and the Territories of the United States, and against the removal of slaves from one State to another, are a part of the plan of operations set on foot to affect the institution of Slavery in the several States, and thus indirectly to destroy that institu

tion within their limits.

"Resolved, That Congress has no right to do that indirectly which it cannot do directly; and that the agitation of the subject of Slavery in the District of Columbia, or the Territories, as a means or with a view of disturbing or overthrowing that institution

in the several States, is against the true spirit and meaning of the Constitution, an infringement of the rights of the States affected, and a breach of the public faith on which they entered into the confederacy.

"Resolved, That the Constitution rests on the broad principle of equality among the members of this confederacy; and that Congress, in the exercise of its acknowledged powers, has no right to discriminate between the institutions of one portion of the States and another, with a view of abolishing the one and promoting the other.

Resolved, therefore, That all attempts on the part of Congress to abolish Slavery in the District of Columbia or the Territories, or to prohibit the removal of slaves from State to State, or to discriminate between the institutions of one portion of the country and another with the views aforesaid, are in violation of the Constitution, destructive of the fundamental principles on which the Union of these States rests, and beyond the jurisdiction of Congress; and that every petition, memorial, resolution, proposition, or paper, touching or relating in any way, or to any extent whatever, to Slavery as aforesaid, or the abolition thereof, shall, on the presentation thereof, without any further action thereon, be laid on the table, without being debated, printed, or referred."

Mr. Cushing, of Massachusetts, objecting, on motion of Mr. Atherton, the rules were suspended; and Mr. ́

No. 1-Yeas 198; Nays 6. No. 2 -Yeas 134; Nays 67-mainly, if not wholly, Northern Whigs. The third resolution having been divided, the House first resolved "That Congress has no right to do that indirectly which it cannot do directly," etc.-Yeas 170, Nays 30. The residue of the third resolve passed-Yeas 164, Nays 39. The fourth resolve was in like manner divided, and passed in two parts, by 182 and 175 Yeas to 26 Nays. The last of Mr. Atherton's resolves was in like manner divided, and the former part adopted by Yeas 147 to Nays 51; and the latter or gag portion by Yeas 127, Nays 78-Henry A. Wise refusing to vote.

This would seem quite stringent enough; but, two years later,21 the House, on motion of William Cost Johnson (Whig), of Maryland, further

[ocr errors]

Resolved, That upon the presentation of any memorial or petition, praying for the abolition of Slavery or the Slave-Trade in any District, Territory, or State of the Union, and upon the presentation of any resolution or other paper touching that subject, the reception of such memorial, petition, resolution, or paper, shall be considered as objected to, and the question of its reception laid on the table, without debate or further action thereon.

“Resolved, That no petition, memorial, resolution, or other paper, praying for the abolition of Slavery in the District of Columbia, or any State or Territory, or the Slave-Trade between the States or Territories of the United States, in which it now exists, shall be received by this House, or entertained in any way whatever."

On this proposition, the votes were - Yeas 114; Nays 108- several Northern Democrats and some Southern Whigs voting with all the Northern Whigs in the minority.2 In a little more than ten years Whig), who voted for this resolve, were as fol

20 December 11, 1838. 21 January 18, 1840. 22 The members from the Free States, twenty-lows: eight in all (all Democrats but Proffit, a Tylerized

22

Maine.-Virgil D. Parris, Albert Smith.

TEXAS UNDER SPAIN.

147

Congress at last discovered and applied the true, enduring remedy for agitation,' in hearing and heeding the demands of Justice, Humanity,

6

after this, Congress prohibited the
Slave-Trade in the District; and,
within twenty-two years, Slavery
itself, in that District, was likewise
abolished by a decided vote. Thus and Freedom.

XII.

TEXAS AND HER ANNEXATION.

never seriously disputed, though another French attempt to colonize it was made in 1714, and proved as futile as La Salle's. The cession of Louisiana by France to Spain in 1763, of course foreclosed all possibility of collision; and when Louisiana, having been retroceded by Spain to France, was sold to the United States, we took our grand purchase without specification of boundaries or guaranty of title. For a time, there was apparent danger of collision respecting our western boundary, between our young, selfconfident, and grasping republic, and the feeble, decaying monarchy of Spain; but the wise moderation of Mr. Jefferson was manifested through the action of his subordinates, so that Gen. Wilkinson, our military commander in Louisiana, and Gen. Her

THE name Texas originally designated an ill-defined and mainly uninhabited region lying between the French possessions on the Mississippi, and the Spanish on the Rio Grande, but including no portion of the valley of either of those great rivers. Though the first European settlement on its soil appears to have been made by La Salle, a Frenchman, who landed in Matagorda Bay, and erected fort St. Louis on the Lavacca, prior to 1687, he is known to have intended to settle on the Mississippi, and to have drifted so far westward by mistake. The region since known as Texas was, even then, claimed by Spain as a part of Mexico; and a Spanish expedition under De Leon was dispatched to the Lavacca in 1689 to expel La Salle; but, on entering that river, learned that he had been assassinated by one of his follow-rera, who directed the small Spanish ers, and his entire company dispersed. De Leon returned next year, and founded the mission of San Francisco on the site of the dismantled fort St. Louis. From that time, the Spanish claim to the country was

[merged small][ocr errors]

force on our frontier, after some threatening demonstrations, came to an understanding in October, 1806, whereby the Sabine was practically recognized as our western boundary, and all peril of collision obviated by

James Gerry, George M'Cullough, David Petriken, William S. Ramsay. Ohio.-D. P. Leadbetter, William Medill, Isaac Parrish, George Sweeney, Jonathan Taylor, John B. Weller. Indiana.-John Davis, George H. Proffit.Illinois.—John Reynolds.

« AnteriorContinuar »