Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

the party to whom such service or labor is due."

The question may arise, whether the law applies to slaves held in the territories of the United States.

"2. Congress shall have power to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory, or other property, belonging to the United States, and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

The question may arise, whether a law of Congress forbidding slaves to be held in the territories in question, does not prejudice the claims of some particular States. And if any State shall object to such law, on the strength of this clause, in defence of some one of its citizens, then,-whether the claim of a citizen to hold slaves is the claim also of his State; in a word, whether any State can appear in the business, either as plaintiff or defendant.

Whether the words "rules and regulations" confer the power of making laws against the introduction of any species of property, or declaring any kind of property contraband in territories of the United States.

By the 14th clause, section viii., of the Constitution, Congress has power "to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces."

It appears that a "rule" may be made for "government;" and if of army and navy, does it apply also to territory?

"3. Congress shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of government of the United States; and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings."

The question may arise whether the phrase, "in all cases whatsoever," confers the power of legislating on the subject of slavery, in such district, or ceded space, and whether, by construction a fortiori, the power extends to territory.

4. "The migration, or importation, of such persons as any of the States shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by Congress prior to the year 1808; but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation not exceeding ten dollars for each person."

As this clause confers the extraordinary power of prohibiting the introduction of slaves, after the year 1808, into States existing at the time of the adoption of the. Constitution, the question arises, whether it does not confer the same power in regard to the new States, and, a fortiori, in regard to territory.

Respect for the august tribunal of the nation forbids our attempting, in the present posture of affairs, to elicit the true intent of the Constitution. We mean to enter only upon the general question of policy, and of the idea of the Constitution, in order to an examination of certain doctrines put forth by Mr. Calhoun in his speech upon the Oregon bill.

If we admit the opinion of Mr. Calhoun, that there is a joint ownership of the territories in the States, each State maintaining its right over them, the most natural course would seem to be a division of the territories, according to the common rules and methods for the division of property held by several owners. A property line dividing the portion claimed by the North from that claimed by the South, seems in that case to be the obvious, and only just, remedy for discontent; a remedy which the parties might demand; but we hold the notion of a joint ownership to be grounded upon a false view of the nature of the property.

The Committee did not, however, adopt this view, at least in express terms. They only urge, that slavery has its natural boundaries, and would not probably penetrate north of the latitude of 36° 40'. Mr. Calhoun urged the same argument against the proposition of those

*

*

*

who wished to fix a geographical line, beyond which slavery should not be lawful. As slavery continues to exist at this day in Kentucky, and formerly existed in Massachusetts and Connecticut, and will easily extend and maintain itself on rich prairie and bottom lands, in temperate climates, even when slaveholders themselves are averse to its extension, the arguments of the committee pass but as

suggestions, of value to those only who | The arguments employed by Mr. Calhoun

feel satisfied from a general view, that slavery will not overrun the whole of the new territories. Hence it is probable that the anxiety of the North will not be wholly abated by the adoption of the bill.

On the other hand, it was agreed by the majority of the committee, that some regions require slave labor: which seems to be an additional argument against referring the matter to the Supreme Court. For if the Court decides against the legality of slavery, those regions which require slave labor will be injured by the decision. Had a committee been appointed to investigate the nature and present condition of the new territories, with a view to set their economical arguments in a clearer light, the idea of a geographical line would not have so much excited the animosity of parties for the committee could have marked out upon the map those countries upon which slavery would be injurious and unprofitable; and, after that, no man would object to an act of Congress "to prevent an injurious and unprofitable extension of slavery" beyond what Mr. Calhoun and the committee regard as its "natural limits."

The North, it is feared, will be disturbed by a decision of the Supreme Court, which excludes them from all influence over the territory to which they claim an equal right, and over which an equal right is conceded them by the South; nor does it seem to be good policy to throw the burden of so dreadful a question upon the court, to the injury, in any event, of its authority and popularity. We would once more call attention to the fact, that the decision, either way, will affect all the territories except Oregon, and will of course be a signal for the most furious opposition. Whatever, therefore, be the difficulties and dangers of the policy of a geographical line-an extension of the Compromise supported by Mr. Clay in 1820-the plan offered by the Committee does not seem to involve fewer, or less alarming, consequences.

The retaliation movement against the compromise policy, led by Mr. Calhoun and supported by all the power of his eloquence, should it prevail through his arguments, and not for other reasons more politic, will be a fatal triumph over the Whig Party.

are directed against the total fabric of the Constitution, nay, against the very idea of liberty itself. He treats the principles of the Declaration with a contemptuous ridicule; he strikes at the very heart of Democracy.

He condemns and derides the Declaration of our fathers, that "all men are created equal." Against the opinions expressed by the Senator, it seems proper to protest at the outset, though in the order of his argument they should be mentioned last.

The Republic was established by its founders, on the idea of MAN as he should be.

If, then, it falls, it falls by the elevation of its principles. "All men," says Jefferson, in the Declaration, "are created equal" declaring that men, as they are gradually moulded by the creative hand, and arrive by nature and Providence at adult perfection, attain to the glorious equality of freedom.

We say of young oaks and elms that they are created to be the monarchs of the forest, just as we say that man is created for freedom. Of a million acorns only one comes to be an oak, and of a thousand oaks only one becomes one of the equal sons of the forest; and so of men.

This idea of human destiny, so far from being a dogma of philosophy, is the first idea of the common law; the law deals with all equally even in the infant, it presupposes the adult, and protects the hope of a perfect man in the mere embryo.

Within and above every written constitution or body of laws, there stands a system of principles, more profound in their origin, and of greater force, than either. This system receives its life, its substantial force, from the idea of the destiny of man; be that a base, or a free, destiny.

The form of this system, on the other hand, varies with time and circumstance it changes, or seems to change, while the substance remains unchangeable. The idea of a free and perfect human being, is the eidolon and the palladium, the image of Deity in man, which symbolizes and measures both law and liberty, in this land. Its place is in the inmost recess of the heart of a freeman. From thence i will not be removed by force; the

neither of policy nor of superstition can | pacity for its exercise: a few nations, only, remove it:

"It fears not policy, that heretic, That works on leases of short numbered hours, But all alone stands hugely politic.”—Shak.

Hence the stern countenance and the aspect of terror and of threat, which men wear when this sacred topic is invaded. It is a fearful topic: the idea of it overwhelms and terrifies. Only the severe and serious mind can approach it; it involves the history of man; it touches the liberty of thought; it repels all control; the differences it creates are inexplicable, irremediable; the fear of Death has no power over it to comprehend it is to comprehend all law and government: it is to know right and wrong, to have been familiar with fear, and resistance, and suffering.

The full accomplished liberty of man is indeed a hope so dignified, that the gravest may entertain it with enthusiasm; all the great and solemn wisdom of legislators in the old republics, sprang from this idea; our ancestors entertained it; theology has seized upon it; literature lives by it; the laws of free States are its defence; wherever it exists in a sufficient number of minds, and with a sufficient distinctness, laws and privileges are created to nurture, strengthen, and maintain it, in all its degrees. In eudalism, in constitutional monarchy, and n the Republic, we have its grand emodiments. Being the mark, and crown, of humanity arrived at maturity, it is the first eature in the idea of man in the Republic; and we say of the freeman, that he and his ellows are created free and equal, the Republic knows no other men; if there be slaves and criminals in it, they do not belong to it; they are classed among its ccidents and its imperfections.

The vast machinery of State, the Execuive, the cabinet, Congress, the courts of aw, the army and navy, the fiscal officers, he polls, all have but one purpose, to naintain and protect liberty.

To say, however, that liberty is a creaion of the law, is to say too much, for no aw or constitution can, of course, more han protect it in its privileges. But we now it is not proper to man in his lawess, infantile or ignorant state; nor have 11 men, or races of men, exhibited the ca

[ocr errors]

have realized it, and always imperfectly.

Political liberty, imaging the mind of a bold, enterprising and intelligent nation, numerous, able in war, skillful in arts, possessing a history, a statute book, and a body of law and custom; such liberty is rather the fruit of the greatest virtue and suffering, possible only after a long probation and discipline, and is so far from being common or equal, great numbers, indeed, even in free States, are ignorant of its nature and value, while they live protected by it. As the state of liberty in the mind is one with the state of law, those only can enjoy it to the full, who have the principles of law within them; persons devoid of truth, of spirit and of virtue, can of course have no appreciation of it. Natural liberty, or rather natural virtue, being extremely rare in its perfection, those who possess it have always constituted a superior order, either as nations, tribes, classes, or individuals. Men of free, elevated character, may, however, be so numerous in a nation as to shape its institutions; and these institutions may so train and educate the many, as to constitute a nation of freemen.

But no free people who have preserved their institutions have granted political liberty to all promiscuously. For the exercise of its first function-the franchise-a part only are selected, fitted by age, circumstances and patriotic sympathy, for its right employment. It is an error to suppose that liberty is best protected by conferring unlimited privileges upon all. It is necessary that those, only, should exercise a function who can use it with discretion and freedom. The appointing power lodged in the people, cannot be properly exercised by persons devoid of natural or educated freedom.

Liberty does not consist in every man's having a hand in the government; franchise is a regular function of government, and we might as well make all men justices, or governors, as make all voters.

Nor will it strengthen liberty to make sacrifices to abstract principles. As it has been established by a gradual process, it can be conferred only by one as gradual: if the slave is to be made free, he must be emancipated in such a manner as that he shall not fall back into his original barbarism, deprived of the superior influence

of the white man, by whom he is raised from a horrid and cannibal freedom, to a useful and important servitude. He has been taught the arts of life, but he has not been taught to live in organized community. His future amelioration must necessarily be by a slow progress, and more by the gradual effect of circumstances than by any sudden or violent efforts, which would end only in his extinction.

Though, therefore, we regard the extinction of slavery, (not of the slave,) as one of the great and desirable ends of statesmanship in this age, as it has been in all past ages, we admit no violent methods, no unconstitutional interference, no ferocious denunciations; the work must be done by those whom nature and the laws appoint to do it, and they must be allowed their own time: liberty in this particular is so absolutely theirs, any attempt to infringe upon it is a declaration of war against our institutions.

*

*

*

On the morning of June 27th, when the bill for an establishment of a territoral

government in Oregon came up, "Mr. Bright, of Indiana, gave notice that he would move the adoption of the Missouri Compromise, as an amendment to the bill, at a proper time in its progress." Mr. Calhoun then rose, and in a speech of moderate length, as is usual with him, but full of matter for reflection, set forth the position and opinion of the extreme Southern party as he represents it.

"There is a very striking difference between the position in which the slaveholding and non-slaveholding States stand in reference to the subject under consideration. The former

desire no action of the Government. * * * On the contrary, the non-slaveholding States, instead of being willing to leave it on this broad and equal foundation, demand the interposition of the Government, and the passage of an act to exclude the slaveholding States from emigrating with their property into the territory, in order to give their citizens, and those they may permit, the exclusive right of settling it, while it remains in that condition, preparatory to subjecting it to like restrictions and conditions when it becomes a State. The 12th section of this bill in reality adopts what is called the Wilmot proviso, not only for Oregon, but, as the bill now stands, for New Mexico and California. The amendment, on the contrary, moved by the Senator from Mississippi, near me, (Mr. DAVIS,) is intended to assert and maintain the

position of the slaveholding States. It leaves the terrritory free and open to all the citizens of the United States, and would overrule, if adopted, the act of the self-constituted Territory of Oregon, and the 12th section, as far as it relates to the subject under consideration. We have thus fairly presented the grounds taken by the non-slaveholding and the slaveholding States, or, as I shall call them for the sake of brevity, the Northern and Southern States, in their whole extent, for discussion."

This statement lays the subject of the controversy between the slaveholding and non-slaveholding States; whereas it lies properly not between the States, which are merely governments, and have only an interest of guardianship in the matter, but between slaveholders and non-slaveholders generally, in all parts of the Union. Mr. Calhoun and his friends have succeeded in giving it a sectional aspect, but a slight examination of the grounds of this controvery shows that it is a contest between the possessors of a certain kind of property, who are a small minority of the citizens, and non-possessors of the same, who are a vast majority. Were the favorite principle of Democracy to be called in aid of a decision, the question would be abruptly settled; but the South appeals to the constitutional principle, that the rights of each and of all shall be equally respected.

Non-slaveholders in all parts of the nation who wish to emigrate into the new territory, claim that this peculiar kind of property shall be declared contraband by Congress, and its importation forbidden. The citizens of Oregon, who, in the absence of a protecting power, very properly established a government for themselves, until such time as one should be granted them by the people of the United States, have declared their wish in this respect by laws against the introduction of slaves. Here, in the territories of Oregon, the free laborers, who feared they might be driven from their homes by the introduction of slaves, have protested against their introduction, and this protest every citizen, be he slaveholder or not, is bound in honor to respect. The free emigrants do not certainly wish to injure slaveholders, or, as Mr. Calhoun says, to exclude citizens with their property with their property in any other shape, citizens would be welcomenay, joyfully received into the new terri

tory: it is merely against the form of the property, as being of a kind that will destroy the value of their free labor, that the emigrants protest. In such a view of the case, it is evident the necessity for the establishment of a free territory for the emigrants is an imperative duty, enjoined by humanity and honor upon Congress, and our confidence in the integrity and justice of Southern Senators will not permit us to believe that they are not fully sensible of the propriety of such a policy.

That a policy of non-interference in this matter would leave slaveholders and free emigrants upon "a broad and equal foundation," as the Senator claims it would, is obviously not correct. Were the new territories left free to all kinds of property, the slaveholder, with his band of negroes, has a great advantage over the free laborer. Slaveholders, therefore, having certain immunities and privileges, in which they are protected by the military and civil force of the United States, all that the non-slaveholders require, is to be defended against the injurious effects of these upon themselves.

The question at issue, and which is at this moment proceeding to a decision, is ¡ whether the peculiar privileges and immunities of the slaveholder shall be permitted to deter and prevent the emigration of free laborers from all parts of the Union into the new territories. If any person can discover injustice or monopoly in this claim of the laboring citizen to be protected by a declaration of contraband against a certain kind of property, we concede him a more penetrating moral vision than our own. Slaveholders must maintain their privileges, and make good their independent rights, but let this charge of a spirit of grasping and monopoly be repelled from the non-slaveholding citizen, and let his fair share, at least, of free territory be reserved to him by the power of the Nation.

And this brings us to another charge, directed against the secret intentions of those who urge the rights of the emigrant to a free territory :

"The non-slaveholding States," says the Senator, * * ** "demand the interposition of government, ** preparatory to subjecting it to like restrictions when it becomes a State."

As far as well-informed citizens, who

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

But the question, we repeat it, is not of States;" States are not to emigrate. South Carolina is not, surely, about to move bodily into the new territory! It is between citizens only. But does the Senator answer the question as it really stands, namely, whether this Government has power to declare any species of property contraband in the new territory?

[ocr errors]

Has the North the power which it claims under the twelfth section of this bill?" he continues. Is not this a question which involves a wrong supposition? It is not the power of the “ North," but of Congress, which is now to be considered. We are to inquire whether Congress has power to declare contraband any species of property in the territories; but, as before, giving in to the usual loose and partisan form of statement, he continues: "Not certainly in the relation in which the Northern and Southern States stand to each other. They are the constituent parts, or members, of a common federal Union; and as such are equals in all respects, both in dignity and rights."

True; but this statement, like the others, leaves so many points uncertain, and loose, it falls almost without effect.

The States, it is said, are equal in authority, and weight. How is it then that the vote of New York, in the House, is so much more powerful than that of Delaware or Rhode Island? Indeed, except as sectional opinion points them out, the States do not appear at all in the House: only the people-the nation-appears there. Neither do the States appear in the Executive

not a shade of State sovereignty appears in the Executive. The House and the Executive standing for the nation, and the

« AnteriorContinuar »