Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

as a

VIEWS OF PATRICK HENRY AND J. Q. ADAMS.

ratification, assailed the Constitution measure of thorough, undisguised, all-absorbing consolidation, and, though himself a professed contemner of Slavery, sought to arouse the fears of the Virginia slaveholders as follows:

66

Among ten thousand implied powers which they may assume, they may, if we be engaged in war, liberate every one of your slaves, if they please; and this must and will be done by men, a majority of whom have not a common interest with you. They will, therefore, have no feeling of your interests. It has been repeatedly said here, that the great object of a National Govern ment was national defense. That power, which is said to be intended for security

and safety, may be rendered detestable and oppressive. If they give power to the General Government to provide for the general defense, the means must be commensurate to the end. All the means in the possession of the people must be given to the Government which is intrusted with the public defense. In this State, there are 236,000 Blacks; and there are many in several other States: but there are few or none in the Northern States; and yet, if the Northern States shall be of opinion that our slaves are numberless, they may call forth every national resource. May Congress not say that every Black man must fight? Did we not see a little of this last war? We were not so hard pushed as to make emancipation general; but acts of Assembly passed, that every slave who would go to the army should be free. Another thing will contribute to bring this event about: Slavery is detested; we feel its fatal effects; we deplore it with all the pity of humanity. Let all these considerations, at some future period, press with full force on the minds of Congress-let that urbanity, which I trust will distinguish America, and the necessity

of national defense-let all these things operate on their minds: they will search that paper, and see if they have the power of manumission. And have they not, Sir? Have they not power to provide for the general defense and welfare? May they not think that these call for the abolition of

Slavery? May they not pronounce all slaves free? and will they not be warranted

'In closing the argument in favor of ratifying the Federal Constitution, Mr. Zachariah JohnBon said:

"They tell us that they see a progressive danger of bringing about emancipation. The principle has begun since the Revolution. Let

233

The

by that power? There is no ambiguous implication or logical deduction. paper speaks to the point. They have the power, in clear, unequivocal terms, and will clearly and certainly exercise it. As much as I deplore Slavery, I see that prudence forbids its abolition. I deny that the General Government ought to set them free, because a decided majority of the States have not the ties of sympathy and fellow-feeling for those whose interest would be affected by their emancipation. The majority of Congress is to the North, and the slaves are to the South."

Gov. Edmund Randolph-who became Washington's Attorney-General-answered Mr. Henry: denying most strenuously that there is any power of abolition given to Congress by the Constitution; but not alluding to what Henry had urged with regard to the War power and the right of Congress to summon every slave to the military defense of the country.

Nor does this view of the subject appear to have attracted much attention elsewhere—at least, it does not appear to have been anywhere controverted.'

In 1836, Mr. John Quincy Adams, having been required to vote Yea or Nay, in the House, on a proposition reported by Mr. H. L. Pinckney, of South Carolina, in these words

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

depredations, proceeded to show that such distribution (which he advocated) was justifiable only under the constitutional power of Congress "to promote the general welfare," which Southern statesmen habitually repudiated, or under the still more sweep ing War power. In the course of his argument, he said:

to interfere with the institution of Slavery
in the States. The existing law prohibiting
the importation of slaves into the United
States from foreign countries is itself an in-
terference with the institution of Slavery in
the States. It was so considered by the
founders of the Constitution of the United
States, in which it was stipulated that Con-
the institution, prior to the year 1808.
gress should not interfere, in that way, with

"During the war with Great Britain, the military and naval commanders of that nation issued proclamations inviting the slaves "Sir, in the authority given to Congress by to repair to their standard, with promises the Constitution of the United States to de- of freedom and of settlement in some of the clare war, all the powers incidental to war British colonial establishments. This, sureare, by necessary implication, conferred upon ly, was an interference with the institution the Government of the United States. Now, of Slavery in the States. By the treaty of the powers incidental to war are derived, peace, Great Britain stipulated to evacuate not from their internal municipal source, all the forts and places in the United States, but from the laws and usages of nations. without carrying away any slaves. If the * * * There are, then, Mr. Chairman, Government of the United States had no in the authority of Congress and of the power to interfere, in any way, with the Executive, two classes of powers, altogether institution of Slavery in the States, they different in their nature, and often incom- would not have had the authority to require patible with each other-the War power this stipulation. It is well known that this and the Peace power. The Peace power is engagement was not fulfilled by the British limited by regulations, and restricted by naval and military commanders; that, on provisions, prescribed within the Constitu- the contrary, they did carry away all the tion itself. The War power is limited only slaves whom they had induced to join them; by the laws and usages of nations. This and that the British Government inflexibly power is tremendous; it is strictly constitu- refused to restore any of them to their mastional; but it breaks down every barrier so ters; that a claim of indemnity was conseanxiously erected for the protection of lib- quently instituted in behalf of the owners erty, of property, and of life. This, Sir, is of the slaves, and was successfully mainthe power which authorizes you to pass the tained. All that series of transactions was resolution now before you; and, in my opin- an interference by Congress with the instiion, there is no other. * There are, tution of Slavery in the States in one way indeed, powers of Peace conferred upon Con--in the way of protection and support. gress which also come within the scope and was by the institution of Slavery alone that jurisdiction of the laws of nations; such as the restitution of slaves, enticed by proclathe negotiation of treaties of amity and mations into the British service, could be commerce; the interchange of public minis- claimed as property. But for the instituters and consuls; and all the personal and tion of Slavery, the British commanders social intercourse between the individual could neither have allured them to their inhabitants of the United States and foreign standard, nor restored them, otherwise than nations, and the Indian tribes, which re- as liberated prisoners of war. But for the quire the interposition of any law. But institution of Slavery, there could have been the powers of War are all regulated by no stipulation that they should not be carried the laws of nations, and are subject to no away as property, nor any claim of indemniother limitation. * * * It was upon ty for the violation of that engagement. this principle that I voted against the resolution reported by the Slavery Committee, 'that Congress possesses no constitutional authority to interfere, in any way, with the institution of Slavery in any of the States of this confederacy;' to which resolution most of those with whom I usually concur, and even my own colleagues in this House, gave their assent. I do not admit that there is, even among the Peace powers of Congress, no such authority; but in war, there are many ways by which Congress not only have the authority, but are bound,

* *

It

"But the War power of Congress over the institution of Slavery in the States is yet far more extensive. Suppose the case of a servile war, complicated, to some extent-as it is even now-with an Indian war; suppose Congress were called to raise armies, to supply money from the whole Union to suppress a servile insurrection: would they have no authority to interfere with the institution of Slavery? The issue of a servile war may be disastrous; it may become necessary for the master of the slave to recognize his emancipation by a

MR. ADAMS ON SLAVERY IN WAR.

treaty of peace: can it, for an instant, be pretended that Congress, in such a contingency, would have no authority to interfere with the institution of Slavery, in any way, in the States? Why, it would be equivalent to saying that Congress has no constitutional authority to make peace."

Mr. Adams proceeded to show that Texas was then [prior to her annexation] the arena of a war concerning Slavery—a war based on an effort to rëestablish Slavery where it had been abolished by Mexico; and that our country was powerfully incited to take part directly therein, on the side of Slavery; and might yet be impelled to do so. In view of this probability, he asked

235

aware that it is touching upon a sore place; and I would gladly get over it if I could. It has been my effort, so far as was in my power, to avoid any allusion whatever to that question which the gentleman from Virginia tells us that the most lamb-like disposition in the South never can approach without anger and indignation. Sir, that is my sorrow. I admit that the fact is so. We can not touch that subject without raisviolence and passion, with which one might ing, throughout the whole South, a mass of as well reason as with a hurricane. That, I know, is the fact in the South; and that is the fact in this House. And it is the reason why members coming from a Free State are silenced as soon as they rise on this floor; why they are pronounced out of order; made to sit down; and, if they proceed, are censured and expelled. But in behalf of the South and of Southern institutions, a man may get up in this House and expatiate for weeks together. On this point, I do complain; and I must say I have been rather disappointed that I have not been put down already, as speaking out of order. What I say is involuntary, because the subject has been brought into the House from another quarter, as the gentleman himself admits. I would leave that institution to the exclusive consideration and management of the States more peculiarly interested in it, just so long as they can keep it within their own bounds. So far, I adinit that Congress has no power to meddle with it. So long as they do not step out of their own bounds, and do not put the question to the people of the United States, whose peace, welfare, and happiness, are all at stake, so long I will agree to leave them to themselves. But when a member from a Free State brings forward certain resolutions, for which, instead of reasoning to disprove his positions, you vote a censure upon him—and that without hearing-it is quite another affair. At the time this was done, I said that, so far as I could understand the resolutions proposed by the gentleman from them for which I was ready to vote, and Ohio [Mr. Giddings], there were some of some which I must vote against; and I will now tell this House, my constituents, and the world of mankind, that the resolution against which I would have voted was that in which he declares that what are called the Slave States have the exclusive right of consultation on the subject of Slavery. For that resolution, I never would vote; because I believe that it is not just, and does not contain constitutional doctrine. I believe that, so long as the Slave States are able to sustain their institutions, without going abroad or calling upon other parts of * April 15.

"Do you imagine that while, in the very nature of things, your own Southern and South-western States must be the battle-field upon which the last great conflict must be fought between Slavery and Emancipation —do you imagine that your Congress will have no constitutional authority to interfere with the institution of Slavery in any way, in the States of this confederacy? Sir, they must and will interfere with it-perhaps to sustain it by war; perhaps to abolish it by treaties of peace: and they will not only possess the constitutional power so to interfere, but they will be bound in duty to do it, by the express provisions of the Constitution itself. From the instant that your slaveholding States become the theater of war-civil, servile, or foreign-from that instant, the War powers of Congress extend to interference with the institution of Slavery in every way by which it can be interfered with, from a claim of indemnity for slaves taken or destroyed, to the cession of the State burdened with Slavery to a foriegn power."

In 1842, when the prospective annexation of Texas, and a consequent war with Mexico, first loomed above the horizon, Mr. Adams returned to the subject; and, with reference to certain anti-Slavery resolves recently offered by Mr Giddings, of Ohio, and the action of the House thereupon, said:,

"What I am now to say, I say with great reluctance and with great pain. I am well

3

the Union to aid them or act on the sub-law of nations. I say that the military ject, so long I will consent never to interfere. I have said this; and I repeat it: but, if they come to the Free States and say to them, You must help us to keep down our slaves; you must aid us in an insurrection and a civil war;' then I say that, with that call, comes a full and plenary power to this House and to the Senate over the whole subject. It is a War power. I say it is a War power; and when your country is actually in war, whether it be a war of invasion or a war of insurrection, Congress has power to carry on the war, and must carry it on according to the laws of war; and, by the laws of war, an invaded country has all its laws and municipal institutions swept by the board, and martial law takes the place of them.

"This power in Congress has, perhaps, never been called into exercise under the present Constitution of the United States. But, when the laws of war are in force, what, I ask, is one of those laws? It is this: that when a country is invaded, and two hostile armies are set in martial array, the commanders of both armies have power to emancipate all the slaves in the invaded territory. Nor is this a mere theoretic statement. The history of South America shows that the doctrine has been carried into practical execution within the last thirty years. Slavery was abolished in Colombia, first by the Spanish General Murillo; and, secondly, by the American General Bolivar. It was abolished by virtue of a military command, given at the head of the army; and its abolition continues to be law to this day. It was abolished by the laws of war, and not by municipal enactinents. The power was exercised by military commanders, under instructions, of course, from their respective Governments.

"And here I recur again to the example of Gen. Jackson. What are you now about in Congress? You are about passing a grant to refund to Gen. Jackson the amount of a certain fine imposed upon him by a judge under the laws of the State of Louisiana. You are going to refund him the money, with interest; and this you are going to do, because the imposition of the fine was unjust. And why was it unjust? Because Gen. Jackson was acting under the laws of war; and because, the moment you place a military commander in a district which is the theater of war, the laws of war apply to that district. * * * I might furnish a thousand proofs to show that the pretensions of gentlemen to the sanctity of their municipal institutions, under a state of actual invasion and of actual war, whether servile, civil, or foreign, is wholly unfounded; and that the laws of war do, in all such cases, take precedence. I lay this down as the

authority takes, for the time, the place of all municipal institutions, and of Slavery among the rest; and that, under that state of things, so far from its being true that the States where Slavery exists have the exclusive management of the subject, not only the President of the United States, but the commander of the army, has power to order the universal emancipation of the slaves. I have given here more in detail a principle which I have asserted on this floor before now, and of which I have no more doubt than that you, Sir, occupy that chair. I give it in its development, in order that any gentleman from any part of the Union may, if he think proper, deny the truth of the position, and may maintain his denial-not by indignation, not by passion and fury, but by sound and sober reasoning from the laws of nations and the laws of war. And, if my position can be answered, and refuted, I shall receive the refutation with pleasure; I shall be glad to listen to reason, aside, as I say, from indignation and passion. And if, by the force of reasoning, my understanding can be convinced, I here pledge myself to recant what I have asserted.

"Let my position be answered; let me be told, let my constituents be told, let the people of my State be told-a State whose soil tolerates not the foot of a slave-that they are bound by the Constitution to a long and toilsome march under burning Summer suns and a deadly Southern clime, for the suppression of a servile war; that they are bound to leave their bodies to rot upon the sands of Carolina-to leave their wives widows and their children orphansthat those who can not march are bound to pour out their treasure, while their sons or brothers are pouring out their blood, to suppress a servile, combined with a civil or a foreign war; and yet that there exists no power, beyond the limits of the Slave State where such war is raging, to emancipate the slaves! I say, let this be proved-I am open to conviction; but, till that conviction comes, I put it forth not as a dictate of feeling, but as a settled maxim of the laws of nations, that in such a case the military supersedes the civil power; and on this account I should have been obliged to vote, as I have said, against one of the resolutions of my excellent friend from Ohio [Mr. Giddings], or should at least have required that it be amended in conformity with the Constitution of the United States."

Hon. Joshua R. Giddings, while a member of the House of Represen tatives, thirteen years prior to the appearance of Mr. Lincoln's Procla

VIEWS OF MR. GIDDINGS AND GOV. SEWARD.

237

mation of Freedom, in reply to slave- | unfeigned reluctance, in a paper holding threats of a dissolution of designed to modify the ideas and inthe Union, said:

"When that contest shall come; when the thunder shall roll and the lightnings flash; when the slaves of the South shall rise in the spirit of Freedom, actuated by the soulstirring emotion that they are men, destined to immortality, entitled to the rights which God bestowed upon them; when the masters shall turn pale and tremble; when their dwellings shall smoke, and dismay sit on each countenance; then, Sir, I do not say we will laugh at your calamity, and mock when your fear cometh, but I do say, the lover of our race will then stand forth and exert the legitimate powers of this Government of freedom. We shall then have constitutional power to act for the good of our country, and to do justice to the slave. WE WILL

THEN STRIKE OFF THE SHACKLES FROM HIS LIMBS. The Government will then have power to act between Slavery and Freedom; and it can best make peace by giving liberty to the slaves. And let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that time hastens; the President is exerting a power that will hurry it on; and I shall hail it as the approaching dawn of that Millennium which I know must come upon the earth."

Our great Civil War was opened on the part of the Union, not only with an anxious desire, but with a general expectation, that it would be prosecuted to a successful issue without seriously disturbing the

foundations and buttresses of Slav

[blocks in formation]

6

fluence the action of a foreign Government-indeed, of all foreign governments-argued that the Rebellion had no pretext that did not grow out of Slavery, and that it was causeless, objectless, irrational, even in view of Slavery, because of the "incontestable" fact set forth by him, as follows:

"Moral and physical causes have determined inflexibly the character of each one of the Territories over which the dispute has arisen; and both parties, after the election [of Lincoln to the Presidency], harmoniously agreed on all the Federal laws required for their organization. The Territories will remain in all respects the same, whether the revolution shall succeed or fail. The condition of Slavery in the several States will remain just the same, whether it succeed or fail. There is not even a pretext for the complaint that the disaffected States are to be conquered by the United States, if the revolution fail; but the rights of the States, and the condition of every human being in them, will remain subject to the same laws and forms of administration, whether the revolution shall succeed or

whether it shall fail. In the one case, the States would be federally connected with the new confederacy; in the other, they would, as now, be members of the United States; but their constitutions and laws, customs, habits, and institutions, will in either case remain the same."

Our regular Army officers, educated at West Point in a faith that identified devotion to Slavery with loyalty to the Federal Constitution and Government, were of course imbued with a like spirit. Gen. McDowell, in his General Order' governing the first advance from the Potomac into Virginia, was as profoundly silent respecting Slavery and slaves as if the latter had no modern existence; while Gen. McClellan, on making a like advance into Western Virginia, issued' an address to the people thereof, wherein he said:

⚫ June 20. See Vol. I., pp. 534-5. * May 26.

« AnteriorContinuar »