^,x/;|','.v.',v/j 
 
 
 
Book_il_3-7_ 
 
.^MWMMW 5 
 
 OR 
 
 CONSIDERATIONS AGAINST 
 
 THE 
 
 4Blilii»S %W lEIOS®¥m& 
 
 WITH SLAVERY, 
 
 INTO THE UNION. 
 
 NEW-HAVEN : 
 
 PRIMED AND PUBLISHED BY A. H. MALTBY AVD CO. 
 
 kt. 1820. 
 

 71153 
 

 OR 
 
 CONSIDERATIONS AGAINST THE ADMISSION 
 
 OF 
 
 MISSOURI AVITH SLAVERY INTO THE UNION. 
 
 A T the approaching session of Congress, it is to be 
 ./\. finally decided by the Representatives of the American 
 people, whether Missouri shall be admitted with or without 
 slavery into the Union ; and whether the magnitude of the 
 considerations involved in this question be considered, with 
 a reference to the Union or to the state of Missouri, it must 
 arrest the attention of every citizen who ever reflects on 
 any topic connected with the common weal. When such a 
 question is presented, little apology is due for any well 
 meant endeavour to give a firmer front to that portion of 
 public opinion already arrayed on the side of justice and 
 policy. Such a cause, with those who duly appreciate it, 
 will sanction even the most humble attempt in its support. 
 No friends of such a cause will be disposed to blame his 
 earnestness who ventures to enter a caveat, however feeble, 
 against a course which he deems, in common with them, for- 
 bidden by every consideration of duty to ourselves no less 
 than to the people of the territory immediately interested. — ■ 
 As the moment approaches which is to determine the fate of 
 such a cause forever, we are naturally eager to seize and 
 improve the short space that remains ; our solicitude ever 
 increases as that moment draws neaj-er, and we become 
 proportionally anxious to minister every attempt that may 
 be prompted by our hopes or apprehensions. This anxie- 
 ty can scarcely lead to supererogatory zeal upon a topic of 
 import so deep and vast as the present : but if it should, a 
 zeal which led to well meant though superfluous labours in 
 such a cause would, doubtless, merit and would meet with 
 more of favour than of censure. 
 
4 
 
 Iflhcie are any who think that this subject has already 
 become hackneyed, I would orily observe to such, that 
 hackoc} ed as they may suf)posc it, it has neither been ex- 
 hausted nor has it lost aught of its interest. To exhaust 
 such a subject would be impossible. It is a question too vast 
 in its extent, and fruitful of arguments as numerous as pow- 
 erful, to be so soon exhausted. It is a topic of that species 
 whose interest increases with the increase of discussion. It 
 is undoubtedly true, that the two more essential parts of this 
 subject have received a full and ample examination both in 
 and out ofCongress. The arguments upon ihcconslUulionaHly 
 of the proposed restriction upon slavery, have perhaps been 
 exiiaustcd. It would seem impossible to add any thing to what 
 has been so forcibly and eloqiicntly and so often urged : the 
 moral and political evils of slavery. But there are some other 
 topics which were barely glanced at in the Congressional de 
 bates last winter: There are some arguments which were not 
 pressed, and some which were not ansiuercd as they deserved. 
 Topics which then seemed to bo shrunk from, must now be 
 inet : the representative cannot lly from them. As he ought 
 to be prepared to meet them, it is no less the duty of his 
 constituents to be prepared to support him by their voice 
 upon them. These cannot therefore be too much pressed 
 on the public attention. 
 
 1 comprehend the full force and am prepared for the full 
 weight of the various epithets and denunciations which have 
 been lavished on tiie advocates of restriction by the tongues 
 and presses of our Southern brethren, and which a few 
 presses further north have not forboi-ne to echo. They 
 have been stigmatized by one set, as the corrupt, unprinci- 
 pled leaders of a faction, plotting the dcbtruction of the 
 very republic itself: by another, as weak enthusiasts, misled 
 by crude and silly notions of the moral as well as the politi- 
 cal evils of slavery : by another, their honourable clForts 
 have been treated as a desperate struggle of a faction for 
 power. What absurd and self-contradictory slanders, whal 
 palpable folly, all these suggestions arc, it would be but the 
 labour of a moment to prove. But I will not go aside to 
 notice the wretched stutl" that has been current in some 
 quarters upon the subject of the motives and views with 
 which the contemplated restriction was originated and sujv 
 ported. They (\o not need any vindication of mine or <of any 
 oilier man. The difiercnt giouuds v/hich have been urged 
 and which will be hereafter stated, for our stand upon this 
 fiubjccl, will be found not only suflicient io csiablish that, 
 but to justify, nay, to command the utmost zeal that has been 
 Uianifested upon it. 
 
A revival of this momentous topic has been deprecated by 
 a certain class, who affect great horrors at the idea of the 
 second national agitation that must follow.* On this, I shall 
 at present only observe that he must be a miserable dupe, or 
 suppose that duping others is a very easy task, who lays or 
 professes to lay any stress whatever upon this consideration. 
 It is undoubtedly an unpleasant thing that our country 
 should be agitated upon any great political question ; we 
 should therefore on any question that is likely to produce 
 so disagreeable an effect, abandon all our grounds, whether 
 of principle or of policy, for fear the public mind may be 
 agitated ! But what is this ghost o^ national agital ion, con- 
 jured up by weak heads to shake weaker nerves ? If by 
 " naiional agitation" we are to understand an intense na- 
 tional attention to this subject, it is an agitation most devout- 
 ly to be wished. The public attention and interest excit- 
 ed by it can do no injury. Confined within the limits of 
 peaceable discussion, they are the more beneficial as tliey 
 have the more extensive range. There is no danger that 
 those limits will be exceeded. This is not a question of the 
 species that serve to awaken popular prejudices or popular 
 fury. It has been from the beginning a pure appeal to the 
 understanding, to the moral sense, and to the best feelings 
 of the nation. All attempts to interweave old party dissen- 
 tions and party watch-words with it have been indignantly 
 frowned down by all parties. No topic which addresses 
 itself to those tribunals I mentioned and those alone, can it 
 ever be improper to press upon the public attention. Sure- 
 ly therefore, this dreaded national agitation is not the con- 
 sideration to deter us from pursuing that course even at the 
 hazard of producing a second one with all its terrors. 
 
 But those who deprecate with so much earnestness any 
 further national agitation upon this question, may perhaps 
 mean something more by it than the mere excitement of 
 public interest, and the warmth of discussion which that may 
 produce. They may mean to hint darkly at deeds of vio- 
 lence and insurrectioR that may follow. Such things have 
 been more than hinted in another place already. So far as 
 this meaning is intended, it shall receive, in a future page, 
 all the consideration to which it is entitled. 
 
 1 had intended only to insist on the right and duty of Con- 
 gress to reject the application of Missouri for admission into 
 ;the Union, until she had consented to prohibit slavery per- 
 petually, within her limits. It was my intention to pass by 
 ihe constitutional question respecting restriction upon slave- 
 
 * Vide Nat. Intelligencer, Richmond Enquirer l:c, passiin. 
 
ry in the hhapeof a legislative provision, as proposed at the 
 last session of Conj^rcis. But as I propose to deduce herc- 
 aitcr several important consequences from the rif^ht of Con- 
 gress to prohibit slavery directly by its own authority alone, 
 and as the right to do it directhj may strengthen the argu- 
 ments for doing it indirccllij, I have concluded to pass in re- 
 view the arguments upon this topic, even at the ha/.ard of 
 an imputation of tediousness and repetition. Besides as 
 neither the right or expedience/ of passing the restriction in 
 that shape at this stnge are abandoned, the question may not 
 improbably [)e herealter revived. Upon this subject, how- 
 ever, I must premise that 1 do not profess to give a full view 
 of all the arguments in favour of the constitutionality of the 
 proj)osed restriction in that shape, but of such only as have 
 appeared to my mind conclusive and unanswerable. 
 
 in the lirst [)lace, From the relation which the territoi-y of 
 the United States bears in its territorial condition to Con- 
 gresa, I deduce the power of Congress to impose the restric- 
 tion in the shape that was contemplated. That relation, it 
 will be seen, is by no means equivocal. On this subject 
 there has never been any conflict of opinion. Congress has 
 been invaiiably supposed to possess an absolute and unqua- 
 lified sovereignty — a legislative authority unlimited, except 
 ])y those great principles of religious and civil liberty, such 
 as freedom of conscience, r\ghi o( habeas corpus, trial by 
 jury, &;c. — which the constitution has recognized as invio- 
 late by Congress. It is true that some difl'erence of opinion 
 has existed as to the source whence this constitutional autho- 
 rity of Congress over the teiritories of the United States is 
 derived ; some considering it as an incident to sovereignty, 
 and others, from the second clause of Sec. 3, Ai't. iv. of the 
 constitution of ihe United States. It is plain that it cannot 
 make the least difference as to the result, from which we de- 
 rive it. In cither case the constitutional supremacy of Con- 
 gress is the same in its extent and iis nature. I have cho- 
 sen lo consider it as derived fi'om the clause before mention- 
 ed, in express terms. But from whichever it is to be deri- 
 ved, one thing is dear; in all matters touching the munici- 
 (lal regiihttions, the civil or criminal code of the territory, 
 . ihc authority of Congress is al)Soliite and supreme. In the 
 t exercise of tliis supremacy, which I have derived from the 
 clause in question, Congreas may cede any part of the na- 
 tional teri iifiry to a particular Stwte, to a foreign power, or 
 by virtue of iis sovereignly erect it into a new Slate, and, 
 bv force of the power ronferred on it by anoiher clause of 
 the same section, admit it into the Union. Such is the na- 
 toie of iIk authority w::h which Congress is invested, over 
 
the national territory. This was the relation which ihe ter- 
 ritory of Missouri bore to the Congress of the United States 
 ■when its inhabitants applied for authority to form a Consti- 
 tulion of State government. Congress thought fit to grant 
 it, and at the same time, while its authority over it as a ter- 
 ritory remained unimpaiied, it was proposed to enact that 
 slavery should be foi'ever prohibited in the territory out of 
 which the new State was to be formed. This clause, pro- 
 hibiting slavery, was opposed as an unconstitutional res- 
 tricfion upon the State. ;^J[&hall endeavor presently to show 
 that it is a constitutional reservation of authority vested in 
 Congress. It has been opposed as unconstitutional by men 
 whose characters (we have nothing to do with their mo- 
 lives,) entitle their opinions to a respectful examination, 
 however futile their arguments may appear to us. They 
 have claimed that this restriction upon slavery by Congress 
 was an interference with the municipal regulations of tlie 
 new State, incompatible with its sovercigtity, and therefore 
 unconstitutional. 
 
 Now without stopping to enquire into the meaning of these 
 vague expressions of" municipal regulations.''^ and '''State 
 sovereignty/, ^^ (neither of which, mean what they may, caa 
 have any apj>lication to this subject,) 1 shall proceed at once 
 to consider the power of Congress to reserve a portion of its 
 constitutional authority over the territory, as deduced fiom 
 the relation they bear to each other. That relation has becu 
 already stated. It has been seen that Cor-gress is vested 
 with a sovereignty absolute and unlimited. When therefore 
 any part of the tenitory of the United States, applies for 
 authority to form a Constitution of State Govej'nment, it ap- \ ' 
 
 ])lies for a relinquisJuneut of authority on the part of Con- 
 gress. Congress may or may not relinquish a portion of it 
 to enable the territory ioform and suppoi't such a govern- 
 ment. The Constitution does not bind or enjoin Congress \ I 
 to relinquish all or any portion of its sovereignty to any ter- ' ; 
 ritory for that pur|iose. Such an idea is altogether unau- 
 thorized by the constitution, and has never beeti broached 
 even in the Virginia school of constitutional lawyers. The 
 constitution makes no relinquishment of any portion ol" the 
 sovereignty of Congress o6//g'rt/or,y. Congress then, being 
 invested with this complete sovereignty over the national 
 territory, and no obligation being imposed by the in^iriunent 
 which confers it, to I'elinquish it or any poiiion of it. it fol- 
 lows irresistibly that Congress may retain, modify and mould 
 it as it sees fit. Such a sovereignty as tlie constitution con- 
 fers on Congress over the territoiy of tiic United Slates, 
 comprehends of necessity the power of retaining, parcelling 
 
 '\ 
 
 ^ 
 
9 
 
 out or relinquishing it at pleasure. It may erect it into 
 bodie? politic of whatever form it chooses to give ihcm. It 
 may make all laws itself, or give it the power of inaUing its 
 own laws. It may relinquish such a portion of its sovereignty 
 as to enable it to erect itself into anew Slate; but what it bhall 
 relinquish to a Stale deriving its existence from itself, must 
 depend on itself^ — on its own pleasure. The relinquishment 
 is voluntary, not compulsory, and consequently the extent of 
 it, as well as the concession itself, must depend on the will 
 of him that makes it. It may bestow or reserve as it pleas- 
 es, and to what extent it pleases. The only limitation of 
 the power of Congress on this subject is, that it cannot in- 
 fringe the constitutional franchises of States. When a Slate 
 is admitted into the Union, it possesses, of course, all the 
 privileges that the constitution confers on a State — such as 
 the right of sending two Senators, electing Representatives 
 according to the constitutional ratio, &c. — but the powers 
 which it acquires for its own independent State purposes, 
 are derived from, and their extent must accordingly depend 
 on, the cession of Congress. As to the powers and franchi- 
 ses which it acquires as a member of the Union, in virtue of 
 its bare admission into it as a State, it must of necessity be 
 on a footing with the original States. Congress cannot en- 
 act that a State erected out of the national territory shall not 
 have more than one Senator, or shall have no voice in the 
 choice of the President ; or in any way diminish or add to 
 the constitutional privileges it is entitled to, m its functions 
 as a member of the Union. The constitution provides that 
 every State shall have certain pozvers or rights as a member 
 of the Union ; and every State is, on its admission, possess- 
 ed of them bi/ virtue of the constitution. In this point of 
 view, the position that a new State must be admitted on an 
 equal footing with the original States, is undoubtedly correct 
 in its fullest extent. In all the functions of a State as a 
 member of the Union — in all its powers referred to its coife- 
 deratc character, which arc derived from the constitution, it 
 must by force of thiit stand on a footing of perfect equality 
 with the other members of the confederacy. Whatever laws 
 Congress might pass impairing the rights of a new State in 
 this respect, would undoubtedly be void. The Congress can- 
 not declare that a Slate, as a member of the Union, shall 
 possess different privileges from those which the constitu- 
 tion assigns and guarantees to every member of the Union, 
 In this sense Congiess must admit new Stales on a footing 
 of perfect equality with the original Stales. So far as th»> 
 confederate powers' and privileges of a new StatP are con- 
 cerned, it is most indisputably not in the power of Congress 
 
; 
 
 9 
 
 to add to or diminish them. The rights which it possesses 
 in its federate capacity, are defined by the constitution, and 
 are unchangeable. 
 
 Wide indeed is the difference between these powers and 
 those which it possesses as a State for the purposes of a State 
 administration. The latter depend entirely on the cession 
 of Congress ; on the relinquishment of a certain portion or 
 of the whole of its constitutional sovereignty. But whence 
 is the idea derived, from what part of the constitution does it 
 receive the slightest countenance that Congress is to relin- 
 quish, of necessity, every vestige of its constitutional sove- 
 reignty when any part of the national territory is erected into 
 a Stale ? It is admitted on all hands that there is not the 
 shadow of an obligation ia)posed on Congress by the consti- 
 tution to erect new States out of the national territory. It : \ \ 
 may, if it should deem it expedient, keep it under a perpet- : | \ . 
 ual territorial goverimient. As there is no obligation on -^ 
 
 Congress to create the State out of the territory, so there is 
 not the shadow of obligation on it to remit all its constitu- 
 tional sovereignty when it allows any part of it to govern it- 
 self. The territory thus formed into a State, has no preten- \ ' 
 sions to any authority of self-government whatever, as a • * 
 right. How absurd then for it to demand that all the au- 
 thority that Congress possesses by the constitution should be 
 unqualifiedly abandoned to it, when by that constitution, its 
 very existence and all the power that it can acquire as a 
 State, are of the favor of Congress alone ! This language ^ 
 
 may be thought derogatory to the dignity of State sovereign- . 
 
 tt/, but it no more aficcts the sovereignty of the State than it 
 affects the sovereignty of Japan. The sovereignty of the 
 State is just as complete as to those subjects over which it is 
 authorized to exercise the power of self-government as that 
 ot any State in the Union. It is supreme as to all subjects 
 oyer which its legislative functions may be rightfully exer- 
 cised as much as any other State. Its integrity of territory 
 can no more be afiected. Still it is a limited sovereignty, 
 like every State in the Union. But whatever may be the ef- 
 fect of this language upon the dignity of the State sovereign- 
 ty, it is the language of the constitution. It may be urged 
 that if this doctrine be admitted. Congress may hereafter 
 think proper to relinquish so small a portion of its sovereio-n- 
 ty that the new States will be deprived of the power neces- 
 sary in the regulation of its own proper municipal concerns. f*^ 
 Congress, it may be said, may think fit to retain the power ■'■' ^ 
 of regulatijig the descent of property, or of any other subject 
 that has been usually considered as the exclusive province of 
 the municipal regulations of a State. It might be sufficient 
 
 JB 
 
10 
 
 to answer to this generally, tiiat the po^aibiiity of an abuse 
 of power can form no argument to disprove its existence. 
 This same argument might with as much reason be made use 
 of to disprove the power of Congress to lay taxes, although 
 it is expressly conferred by the constitution : for it might 
 be said that it is impossible that a power could exist in Con- 
 gress of indefinite taxation, concurrently with the same pow- 
 er in the Stater,, when it might be so easily wrought to^ de- 
 prive them of all revenue, and thus to annihilate them. The 
 entire disposal of this sovereignty of Congress over the ter- 
 ritory of the U. S. is as clearly and expressly given by the 
 constitution as the power of taxation. The same argument, 
 therefore, which might be drawn from a possibility of abuse 
 in the one case, would apply equally to the other. 
 
 Upon the view, therefore, which is here offered of the con- 
 stitutional sovereignty of Congress over the national territo- 
 ry, it follows irresistibly thai Congress may delegate or re- 
 serve it, as they deem expedient : that the idea that Con- 
 Igress may not reserve or retain a portion of it with regard 
 to any particular subjects, is altogether fanciful and gratuit- 
 ous. 1 have not thought it worth while to advert particularly 
 to the alarm which a possible abuse of this power might be 
 made a pretext for exciting. It cannot surely be necessary 
 to take much pains to quiet apprehensions so groundless as 
 those arising from the exercise of a constitutional power of 
 Congress. The danger to new States from this power of 
 Congress is the same as that arising to the old ones from the 
 power of taxation, and many of the other powers of Congress. 
 If the power claimed can be proved to be an unconsiitutioa- 
 al assumption, there would then be good reason for oppos- 
 ing it to the utmost of our means : but till then these affect- 
 ed apprehensions serve no pur{)0sc but to mislead the weak 
 and uninformed. 
 
 But it has been contended and with much ingenuity, that 
 this relation, which is conceded on all hands to subsist be- 
 tween the Congress and national territory, has been essen- 
 tially changed in the case of the Missouri territory by the 
 act of Congress which advanced it to what was called "' the 
 J' second grade of territorial government." (Speech of Hon. 
 H. Baldwin, in the Missouri debate.) To explain this ; the 
 first grade is said to exist when the judges, governor, «Szc. 
 are appointed by Congress or under its authority, and all 
 the laws of the territory are made by it. This is the fnsi 
 grade of territorial government. But Congress has been 
 in the practice of authorizing the inhabitants of any particu- 
 lar territory, when its number of free white male inhabitant5 
 amounts to five thousand, to elect a general assembly, oi 
 
li 
 
 territorial legislature, which nominates ten persons, out of 
 whom Congress, or the President under its authority, selects 
 five as a legislative council. Two branches of a legisla- 
 ture are thus organized, who, by the allowance of Congress, 
 have |)ower to make laws, subject to the vi-to of the governor. 
 This (or something like this, as Congress may vary it,) has 
 been called a " second grade of territorial government." 
 In this fancied ^•mrfc, the assembly above described, has, 
 hitherto, had authority granted it by Congress to make laws 
 touching most, and in some cases all, the internal concerns 
 of the territory. In the case of Missouri, the authority was 
 in these words : " The general assembly of the territory shall 
 have power to make laws in all cases, civil and criminal, 
 for the good government of the people of said territory, not 
 inconsistent with the constitution of the United States." 
 (Laws of the U. S. vol. 4. p. 438.) Now it is contended 
 that such an authority as this, conferred on any territory 
 carved out by Congress, makes a territorial government of 
 the second grade, and that when once this second grade is 
 thus created, the power of Congress over the subjects com- 
 preheuded in the authority of the territorial assembly, has 
 iorever ceased. That this authority is irrevocable, like the 
 charter of a corporation, and that Congress can no more 
 interfere in the internal polity of such a grade of territory 
 than it can in the internal polity of a State ! A very 
 few observations will suffice to shew the futility of this idea. 
 It is clear that- the constitution of the United States recog- 
 nizes no such grades of territorial government. It knows 
 no such state of " betweenity," as a member of Congress, 
 Mr. Baldwin, who urged this argument, termed it. It has 
 made no form of territorial government that Congress may 
 devise, unchangeable and irrevocable. It acknowledges 
 but one grade of national territory, and while the state of 
 national territory subsists, the power of Congress over it is 
 absdute and unlimited. It may model the government of it 
 on what plan and principle, consistent with republican prin- 
 ciples, it pleases. It may, one year, give the representa- 
 tives of the people, in the territorial legislature, the power 
 of appointing all offices for the territory and of making all 
 laws for its good government, and it may, the next year, re- 
 peal the law granting that authority, and resume both the 
 powers itself. This results both from the nature and extent 
 of its sovereignty and its constitutional power to make all 
 rules and regulations for the government of the territory. 
 The notion that such an authority to a territory to legislate 
 upon subjects of internal polity or to choose its own olHcers, 
 !t> irrevocable, proceeds upon the grountl that the awthoriiy 
 
12 
 
 is like the charters of corporations, a contract. The case of 
 Dartmouth college was actually cited on the tloor of Congress 
 to prove that the authorUy which Congress may delcgaie lo 
 the people of a territory of making laws, was irrevocable ami 
 unalterable. If these principles which govern grants to 
 bodies corporate have no limits in their application, there is 
 no law conferring an au</ion/^ on any individual or botiy 
 repealable. But this grant, (if it must be termed so,) of 
 authority to a territory to make laws for itself, is only and 
 merely a " regulation " of Congress for the government of 
 the territory, and like all other '' regulations " must, of 
 course, be subject to repeal and alteration. If the principle 
 of the irrevocable nature of grants to bodies corporate is to 
 be applied here, the consequence is, that Congress may 
 make " rules and regulations " for the government of the 
 national territory, but cannot alter them. The very power 
 perishes in the exercise of it. If any need that such a posi- 
 tion should be refuted, I should despair of convincing them 
 of any thing by any argument, and with such I cannot reason. 
 It is sufficient answer to such a position to state it. 
 
 But the relation between the Congress and the territory 
 of the United States, presents itself in a somewhat dilFerent 
 point of view, as it respects this restriction. Without any 
 reference to the reservation of sovereignty, which I have just 
 ur<^ed, the power of Congress to bind the territory /orei'cr 
 upon subjects within the scope of its legislative authority 
 over the territory, may be manifested in a dilierent mode. 
 When I say bind it forever, I mean as well after as before 
 its admission into the Union as a State. A single glance at 
 the origin and nature of the legislative power ofa State form- 
 ed out of the territory of the United States will, I apprehend, 
 convince any rational being that it may thus bind the territo- 
 ry. The power of Congress is supreme, and the source of 
 . ^ . all the legislative power of such a State. All the legislative 
 . power of the State thus formed is derivative. Whil« Con- 
 gress therefore has the supreme authority, it may pass laws 
 prohibiting ;?fr;>e<jw/A/ the introduction of slavery into the 
 territory: Those laws, if made and declared perpetval by 
 Congress, are repealable by Congress itself — but by itself 
 alone. For the power of such a legislature being altogether 
 derivative must be subject to laws having their force and ori- 
 gin from the superior legislature. The derivative power 
 must otherwise be superior to the original. II therefore 
 Congress should pass a law regulating the descent ol proper- 
 ty /orcrc^- in all the national territory, and make and declare 
 it unalterable and unrepealable by any territorial or Stale- 
 legislature that it might afteiwarda erect in the territories, I 
 
 ^ ^ 
 
13 
 
 ask where would be the power, except itsrlf, that could 
 clK'.n^e such a law ? U is made by a rightful legislator ; it 
 is made l)y the suj>reme source of all subscquont legislatures 
 that may subsist in the territory. That a Slate legislature 
 which derives all its power fron) the grant and allowunce oi 
 Congress, should have the [)owcr of annulling all the prior 
 acts of that body, n\?n\e perpetually binding on the territory, 
 is manifestly contradictory and absurd. But 1 need not 
 urge this principle. It has been already recognized in its 
 fullest extent by the ojiponents of restriction themselves, in 
 the act [)rohibiting slavery forever in all the territory of the 
 United States, North of "SGd. 30iii. N. latitude (commonly 
 called the Compromise.) 
 
 in the second place, the power of Congress with respect 
 to the admission of new States into the Union, most amply 
 sustains their right to insist on this restriction though in a 
 somewhat different shape : that is, rather in the shape of \ 
 compact than of legislation. The first clause of sect. 3d, art. 
 IV. confers this power, and is in these woids : " Congress 
 may admit nezv States mto this Union.'''' This invests Con- 
 gress with the fullest power that could be expressed, with 
 respect to the admi>sion of new States. It is nrirjualihed and 
 unlimited, and leaves the subject in the hands of Congress 
 without restriction or reservation. This power cannot be 
 mistaken. It is the power of admitting or rejectifig any 
 commonwealth rohcrever formed and whatever its constitution, 
 that may apply lor a share of the benefits of this Union. 
 Congress may here exercise the fullest discretion, and upon 
 a view of the commonwealth that applies for admission, up- 
 on a view of the character of its {)0{)ulation, its particular 
 institutions, its constitution of government, or ofanyothei 
 and all other features of its condition, may admit it or not. 
 
 This power of admitting or rejecting at pleasure, neu- 
 Staies applying for admission into the Union, necessarily in- 
 cludes \.\\q power of admitting them upon such conditions and 
 with such mutual stipulations as may be agreed on between 
 Congress and the new State applying for admission. This 
 has from the first ap]:)eared too plain to admit of doubt, and 
 almost too self-evident to be susceptible of argument. To 
 deny it, goes not only to deny of this power what nobod} 
 ever thought of denying with respect to any other power: 
 to wit: '' That the power of doing or not doing at pleasure 
 necessarily involves the power of doing upon condition.'''' — 
 But the denial of the power of Congress to admit new Stales 
 tipoyi condition, leads to an absurdity, if possible, more pal- 
 pable than that, that Congress and a State are not capable of 
 making a compact with each other. It deprives both of the 
 
u 
 
 right and power of contracting. Where is such a doctrine 
 to be found ? Who would own hJQiselfthe author of it ? and 
 who ought not to be ashamed to support it ? In one word, if 
 there is any thing incontestible it is this : — tiiat Congress, 
 under its general power to admit new States, may admit them 
 upon svch conditions and terms as may be agreed on by the 
 contracting parties. 
 
 The only point which remains for a moment's considera- 
 tion, is whether \he proviso, intended to have been added to 
 the act authorizing Missouri to form a State Constitution, 
 can be considered as a compact ; and whether Congress may, 
 before a new State Is formed, lay down a condition, with 
 which it is bound to comply, if it comes into the Union. 
 
 The shape which the contemplated exclusion of slavery 
 from the State of Missouri assumed, was that of a proviso 
 annexed to the law authorizing the territory to form a State 
 government. After granting it that authority, the proviso 
 went on : " Provided that involuntary servitude^ except in 
 the punishment of crimes, shall be forever prohibited.'''^ If a 
 State had been already formed, no matter how or where, and 
 soliciting admission into the Union, and Congress had ad- 
 mitted it, \\'\ih proviso at the same time, that slavery should 
 be prohibited forever within it, and the Slate had acceded 
 to the Union under this proviso, it would incontestibly have 
 been bound by it as a compact. It would be a compact of 
 tlic highest and most solemn form — a legislative compact. 
 If the State had violated its good faith by permitting slave- 
 ry, after its admission. Congress would have the right to 
 compel an observance of the compact. But there would be 
 no occasion for it to interpose its own power to do this — 
 Most unquestionably the Supreme Court of the nation would 
 enforce the principles of the compact, in all cases that might 
 come before it. The new State would be subject to the ju- 
 risdiction of that tribunal, and it would be as much thedutj!- 
 of that tribunal to enforce that compact as it would to en- 
 force any law of (he U. S. or of that State. But I do not 
 wish to enter at large into this subject. The sujfposition 
 ought not indeed to be indulged for a moment that the State 
 would violate its good faith. 
 
 Is there then any difference, with respect to such a com- 
 pact, between the case of a State already formed, and the 
 case of a State about to be formed, out of the territory ol the 
 U. S. ? Where is the ground of difference ? The same con- 
 dition annexed by way of proviso to the law authorizing the 
 formation of a Slate govenmiont, must bind the Slate when 
 it is formed, if it accrf)ls the authority. If it proceeds to 
 torui a Slate government under such an authority, it does it 
 
15 
 
 subject to the condition annexed to it : the authority and the 
 condition are accepted together. But this argument needs 
 no further illustration. If it had been less clearly demon- 
 strated by others already, so firmly convinced am I of its ir- 
 refragable nature that I should venture to leave it without 
 further comment. 
 
 To these arguments, drawn from the constitution itself, I 
 might here add, the argument to be drawn from precedent — 
 which in all other cases of construction of any part of our 
 constitution has always been most strongly and justly relied 
 on. The practice of our government, uniform and unques- 
 tioned, in the formation and admission of new States, to an- 
 nex conditions, must, if any practice can have force, be an 
 argument of the most forcible nature here. But as the ar- 
 guments drawn from the constitution itself appear to stand 
 in no need of this to' fortify them, and as it has been con- 
 tended that those precedents passed sub silentio, and have 
 not therefore the full force of precedents, I shall pass it, 
 not fromtiiiy opinion however of its weakness, but of its su- 
 perfluousness. I shall proceed in this spot to consider an 
 objection which has been raised from a part of the constitu- 
 tion itself. 
 
 The part of the constitution which has been selected for 
 the purpose of an argument against the right of Congress to 
 annex this restriction, is the 12Lh amendment. The history 
 of that is well known to every body ; the Conventions of sc 
 veral of the States, at the time of ratifying the federal con- 
 stitution, had from some undefined apprehensions of the 
 powers of Congress, expressed a desire that further declar- 
 atory and restrictive clauses should be added. According- 
 ly Congress, in obedience to that wish, at their first session, 
 proposed a number of articles, sonie dcclaralory and others 
 restrictive or enactive, among the first of which is the a- 
 mendment in question. It is purely declaratorif, and is only 
 an instance of the extreme and overweening jealousy of the 
 powers of Congress and the federal governiuent, which pre- 
 vailed at that period, and which is still in some parts of the 
 nation cherished with a zeal as blind and groundless as the 
 prejudices which first gave it birth. That amendment c?e- 
 clares, that " The powers not delegated to the (J. S. by the 
 Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States^ are reserved tb 
 the States respectively or to the people.'''^ This declaration 
 provides nothing and operates nothing. This was the only 
 construction that could be given to the constitution before. 
 The nature and spirit of our constitution, and of the powers 
 it confers, which arc wholly delegated, made such a declar- 
 atory amendment unnecessary and inoperative, it is whol- 
 
16 
 
 \y inoperative — for the legal maxim, ^' expre^isio'eorum qnx 
 tacite insiint nihil operalur,'''' is most applicable heic. Where 
 there is doubt, well groundrd or plausible, it is hiji;lily pro- 
 per to remove it by something dtclaratory ; but vvhei-e doubt 
 is absurdity, it is absurd to be at such pains to remove it. 
 It is iticonceivabie how intelligent men could ever have car- 
 ried their apprehensions and jealousy of the general govei'n- 
 ment so far, as to require a declaratory article of this nature. 
 How they could for a moment doubt that the government, 
 created by such a delegation of power and sovereignty, could 
 not exceed the limits of its delegated powers. This amend- 
 ment therefore defines nothing, but leaves every thing as ii 
 was before. Aside from this amendment altogether, there 
 can be no doubt but that a new State, admitted into the Un- 
 ion witliont ;\uy reservation of authority on the part of Con- 
 gress, or without any compact that restrains it in any way, 
 would be in possession of "all the |)0\vcrs not delegated to 
 the U. S. or prohibited to the States." But this amendment 
 affects no power previously delegated to Congress by the con- 
 stitution. It cannot therefore atiect the right of Congress 
 to reserve (which I have contended it possesses,) its author- 
 ity on any subject of legislation in the territory which it e- 
 rects into a Slate. The power delegated to it of making 
 rules and regulations for the territory of the United States, 
 con/a/ns this power of reserving it: and therefore, as this 
 right of reservation in Congress is a power delegated to them, 
 this declaratory article docs not alter it. Indeed, fiora the 
 very nature of this article, it can have no weight in the con- 
 struction of the constitution, if before this amendment Con- 
 gress was bound to surrender all its power over a territory 
 which it authorized to be formed into a State, it is now bound 
 to do so. If it was not then, it is not now. And this brings 
 us again to the Cjueslion : whether Congress, from its con- 
 stitutional relation to the territory, has not the power of re- 
 serviv[f any authority on any subject of legislation in the ter- 
 ritory / This, 1 have already attempted to demonstrate, it 
 may do. 
 
 But neither does this amendment in the slightest degree 
 affect the right of Congress and the State to make a compact, 
 with respect to a power that would belong to the State when 
 formed. If the State woulil possess the right to interdict or 
 admit slavery, does this amendment aflect iier right to stipu- 
 late before hand with Congress that she will itUerdict it' 
 That this power belongs to the State, does not surely aliec; 
 its right to deal with it as it pleases. Nor because Con 
 gress has not a power delegated to itself to do or prohibit a 
 certain act, does il follow that it may not stipulate with tLt 
 
17 
 
 State which possesses it, either to do or prohibit that act. 
 This would be to take away all power of making compacts 
 from Congress, and nothing less than such a doctrine can 
 affect its right to insist on this restriction. In the last place, 
 this constitutional question, if any shadow of a doubt could 
 be thrown upon it still by false reasoning or false facts^ must 
 be put forever at rest by a single glance at the power confer- 
 red on Congress by another part of the constitution. The 
 power of Congress " to regulate commerce loith foreign na- 
 tions and among the several States,^^ taken in connection 
 •with the restriction contained in the 9th Sect, of Art. 1, will 
 put this matter beyond doubt. That restriction provides that 
 " the migration or importation of such persons as any of the 
 States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be 
 prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand 
 eight hundred and eight ; but a tax or duty may be imposed 
 on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each 
 person." This clause is plainly a restriction on some 
 power previously conferred on Congress. So far as Con- 
 gress is restricted from prohibiting " the importation o( such 
 persons," it is obviously a restriction upon its general 
 power of " regulating commerce with foreign nations." 
 This clause confers the right on Congress of prohibiting the 
 importation of slaves ; the restrictive clause postpones the 
 exercise of that power till the year 1808. Now, the power 
 conferred on Congress of " regulating commerce among the 
 several States," is conferred in terms co-extensive with its 
 power of regulating commerce with foreign nations. It the 
 same rules of construction are to govern the one as the other, 
 the power of Congress to prohibit exportation from one 
 State lo another, is as clear as its right to prohibit exporta- 
 tion from any State to a foreign nation. Cases may be 
 easily supposed, in which, such a power over the inter- 
 course of the States would be necessary, to enable the gen- 
 eral government to fulfil its duties. If, for instance, the gov- 
 ernment, in time of war, should have an army in a particular 
 State, and, for the sake of securing supplies for it, it should 
 become necessary to lay an embargo on the exportation of 
 provisions, &c. from the State, Congress would, in virtue of 
 this power, have an undoubted right to do it. We might 
 naturally look for some restriction upon this power of Con- 
 gress with respect to prohibiting the commerce in slaves 
 between the different States. It was not to be expected, 
 that those who insisted on restricting the right of Congress 
 to prohibit the introduction of slaves, from abroad, would let 
 the power of prohibiting the slave trade " among the several 
 States." pass without restriction. Accordingly, we find 
 
 C 
 
 • • 
 
18 
 
 this restriction expressed in appropriate Icrtiis. This re- 
 strictive clause provides that the ''''migration of si'ch per- 
 sons shall not be prohibited prior, &;c." : Now the leiTii 
 ^'^migralion'''' could not be applied to the importation of 
 slaves from abroad. This would be not only superadding 
 an unnecessary word, for the word importation is itself used, 
 but it would be using the torin most incorrectly. The word 
 " migration,'''' means otdy a change of residence from one 
 part of a country to another. This meaning is given it by 
 all the standard lexicographers. If it means any thing else, 
 if it is synonimous with importation, as has been contended, 
 it would be a word without meaning and without use. This 
 cannot be supposed : those who framed that instrument did 
 not use superlluous phrases : we cannot, therefore, without 
 doing violence to their language, give it any other construc- 
 tion than that I have stated. 
 
 But this important point docs not rest here alone : we 
 have from more than one of the convention that formed the 
 constitution, the views of that body upon this very question. 
 Mr. Jay, who was a member, has solemnly declared, that the 
 above was the construction given by every member of the 
 convention; and the journals of the convention, it is under- 
 stood, exhibit the same views in the clearest light. It was 
 universally taken for granted that the power of Congress to 
 prohibit the commerce in slaves among the different States, 
 was the same as to prohibit it with foreign nations ; and it 
 was as universally understood that the word " migration,'^ 
 in the restrictive clause above cited, referred to the regulation 
 of that commerce among the different States. Surely 
 doubt must be silenced here. Every argument that could 
 put the question at rest is found ; and if there are any that 
 can serve, on the other hand, " for a loop to hang a doubt 
 upon," I am not aware of them. 
 
 I have dwelt on this part of my subject much longer than 
 I ought or intended to have done. I am glad, however, that 
 it furnishes me with an excuse for passing with few words 
 one argument against restriction, which 1 have scarcely pa- 
 tience to consider at all. Its nakedness has never been co- 
 vered for a moment by the flimsiest veil of sophistry. 
 
 The argument alluded to is that drawn from the Treaty by 
 which we acquired this territory. That contains a stipula- 
 tion " that the inhabitants should be incorporated into the 
 Union, as soon as may be, according to the principles of the 
 federal constitution." Whether this stipulation is not fulfil- 
 led by admitting the Inhabitants to the privileges of citizen- 
 ship alone, without erecting the territory into States, might 
 admit of the greatest question ; but I am willing to consider 
 
19 
 
 k as all that has been claimed — as a stipulation that the ter- 
 ritory should be erected into States, and they admitted into 
 the Union. No argument can then be di-a\vn from it. In 
 the first place, the President and Senate cannot, by treaty, 
 admit new Stales. Nor consequently can ihey hind Congress 
 to admit them, unless it thinks proj)er. This stipulation must 
 therefore be taken to have l.ieen made suliject to the sanc- 
 tion of Congress. The President and Senate, by virtue of 
 the treaty-making power, can no more admit a new State 
 than they can make war by force of a ti-eaty. The power 
 of admitting new Slates, like that of declaring war, is vested 
 in Congress alone, by the constitution, and no treaty can af- 
 fect the one more than the other. This stipulation there- 
 fore must be taken to be made subject to the sanction of Con- 
 gress. But even granting for a moment that Congress is 
 bound to admit the territory as a State into the Union, still, 
 it does not follow that it is bound to admit li uncondition- 
 aVij. It is to be admitted according to " the principles 
 of the federal constitution." Now- if by that constitution 
 Congress has the right of admitting up(Mi conditions, Mis- 
 souri would still be admitted upon the principles of the fed- 
 eral constitution if admitted with this resthiction. But I 
 have already spent more lines upon this argument of the 
 treaty than it deserves letters. I pass from it with disgust 
 at such attempts to sustain a cause condemned by every 
 consideration, human and divine. 
 
 The c|uestion then is brought to this : Whether the Con- 
 gress of the United States, having it in their power constitu- 
 tionally to choose, will prefer that a new member of this 
 Union shall be free or not from the stain and curse of slave- 
 ry ? — Whether it will extend and encourage, or arrest and 
 exclude it, from a territory toward which it is making its 
 deadly and hateful progress, but in which it has not gained 
 a fast foothold yet ? And what questions are these for an 
 American Congress to hesitate upon ? lias slavery lost its 
 character or its effects? Has it become, by a revolution in 
 the code of the rights of man, less oppression than it was ? 
 Have we grown wiser since the "' sainted sires" of our na- 
 tion asserted, in the most august assembly that any age or 
 country ever beheld, that all men were '' born free and e- 
 qual" '/ Have we discovered that they were in the wrong 
 when they affirmed that all men were " endowed with certain 
 unalienalile rights, among which are life and liberty'''' ? By 
 whom, when and where was this discovery made ? What 
 has rendered it just in their immediate descendants to de- 
 prive all whom they may of these unalienable rights? Has 
 slavery "changed its spots," that men arc thus anxious and 
 
 1 
 
20 
 
 zealou"5 in extending it? Has the interdict, which every 
 principle we hold sacred as freemen pronounces upon it, 
 been removed, that we should be instrumental in adminis- 
 tering such food to the depravity that craves it? Or has this 
 oppression, tolerated from necessity, flourished so long that 
 it has grown legitimate ? By what strarige transformation is 
 it thai the extension of slavery has become a fit cause to cm- 
 ploy the energies of the patriot, the philanthropist, and the 
 sage? Whence comes this unholy zeal to pour slavery into 
 regions yet almost untainted by it ? — to pollute a soil and a 
 climate favored of heaven, with a curse that claims so near 
 affinity with hell? — to make plains and vallies, which 
 should never echo but to the voice of freemen, resound with 
 the yells and shrieks of oppressed and degraded humanity ? 
 The time assuredly was, when such a question as this sub- 
 ject presents would not have made so wide a breach in the 
 opinions of an American Congress. The time has been, 
 when it would have been met with a degree of unanimity by 
 the representation from all parts of the Union. At least, 
 the time was when slavery would have found men to breast 
 its progress in the representation of the non-slaveholding 
 States, who would have needed no appeals to their conscien- 
 ces, their hearts, or their understandings, to keep them firm 
 to their purpose. Nor is it long since the most distinguish- 
 ed men, who were born in the land and cradled in the lap of 
 slavery, were as loud and as sincere in their condemnation 
 of it as any men in this nation. They lamented the necessi- 
 ty that obliged them to maintain a practice so inconsistent 
 with the rights of man, so fraught with moral and political 
 mischiefs, and so dangerous to their country's tranquillity 
 and their own safety. But now, when the question is to be 
 decided whether Missouri shall be eternally visited with this 
 calamity, or preserved from it, how ditTerent is the note 
 heard from that quarter of the Union! "Slavery has now 
 lost its terrors and its deformity : now the people of the 
 States where it exists not, have crude and exaggerated con- 
 ceptions of its evils : they do not understand the subject : — 
 Now the principles of our Declaration of Independence are 
 principles to talk by and swear l)y, but not to live by." — 
 This has been the language held in an American Congress, 
 in the face of the nation and of the world. This only proves 
 that slavery, like all other monsters, loses its horrors upon 
 familiar acquaintance. Men who have attained this stale of 
 insensibility by their unhappy contact with it, are not asha- 
 med to become its apologists and defenders. But we, who 
 are by principle, by feelings and education, opposed to it, 
 
91 
 
 arc not yet prepared to learn a new creed upon the subject 
 from such men. 
 
 Let those whose moral sensibilities are thus bhinted by 
 faniiliaritv with slavery, hno; it, if they please, as fondly as 
 they would their drarcst rights. Xliis cannot change its 
 character. It is mtrinsically xvrong ; if there are any rights 
 but those of the strongest; if all the rights of man are not a 
 jest and a dream, !t is the foulest oppression, if we have a 
 "title to one jot of that freedom which we consider as our he-^ 
 ritage. Liberty is as much the heritage of these unhappy [ 
 men as it is ours: and though we may force slavery upon | 
 them for a while in its stead, yet their right to frredom is, ' 
 as we hold ours, unalienable and inextinguishable. We 
 may cry that they cannot bear liberty— that they are not ripe 
 for emancipation : But whose is that fault? Not the fault of 
 the slave ; for he, poor wretch ! is not master of his own 
 destiny. It is the master's will and the master's intcresl, 
 that have so long kept him in a state unfit for emancipation. 
 And now he would take advantage of his own foul wrong, as 
 an excuse for holding him in perpetual thraldom! What a 
 spectacle for the freest nation on the globe is Uiis ! Millions 
 of slaves in her very bosom, kept in a state of the most ab- 
 ject servitude, because they are not intelligent enough to 
 liberate, and no step ever taken to render them so; no step 
 but what tends to rivet their chains forever ; to seal the doom 
 of slavery to eternity ! 
 
 The moral consequences of this practice are precisely 
 what might be expected to follow from such a violation of 
 the laws of God and nature. But I am not disposed to soil 
 my pages with details of the cruelty, licentiousness and sen- 
 suality, of which this unhappy race are so often the objects, 
 and not unfrequently the victims. These, abominable as 
 they are, are not the only nor perhaps the worst effects that 
 follow in the train of slavery. Its influence on the moral 
 state of the slave himself is, to those who recognize him as 
 a fellow creature, the blackest feature in the portrait of slave- 
 ry. The security of the master consists in the ignorance of 
 the slave. They must not learn their own condition, for 
 they would be rendered desperate. Hence the slave be- 
 comes r^ brute, to all intents, in his moral as well as his le- 
 gal capacity. | In all the slave States the instruction of slaves ^ 
 is by law prohibited! It is made penal, made a crime, to 
 raise them in any degree above the level of the beasts of the 
 field. And all this raises no blush in the cheek of him who, 
 while he calls them his property, is forced to acknowledge 
 them as his fellow men ! This systematic brutalizing of so 
 large a portion of our species has ceased to excite sensation 
 
OC 
 
 2 
 
 among men who are so proud, and so ready to manifest 
 sympathy and indignation for the fate of the oppressed in 
 other climes ! 
 
 It has been said thnt the slaves are by no means so brut- 
 ish as has been supposed, for they are very affectionate and 
 faithful (o their masl^r-;. So is the dog who licks the crumbs 
 from under his master's table ; and this is all the aflection of 
 the slave. Jlis affection and fidelity are but an amiable 
 brute instinct. Like that of the brute alluded to, it is gen- 
 erally manifested most where the poor wretch is worst treat- 
 ed. This ludicrous argument of (he slave's affection for his 
 master and his family, was actually urged on the floor of 
 Congress as a palliation if not a justification of slavery. 
 
 But after all, this system of negro slavery is more imme- 
 diately perilous and appalling in its political consequences. 
 The dangers of this species that attend it, press upon us at 
 every moment, shut our eyes as we may. If the slave States 
 could l)e sure of always retaining their slaves in the same 
 state of ignorance, these dangers would not be iew nor small. 
 It is well known that their past experience has not left them 
 entirely free from apprehensions. There have been con- 
 spiracies among the slave population that, rude and feeble 
 as they w^ere, served to show the spirit of desperation which 
 prompted them. I speak of facts notorious and undeniable, 
 when I say that in some districts, and those not narrow in 
 extent, the planters never retire to rest till they have, armed, 
 and that with mortal weapons, reconnoitered the huts 
 of their slaves, in the darkness of night, to see that no 
 scheme of insurrection and havoc is plotting under its cloak. 
 This evinces, in a light not to be misunderstood, what reli- 
 ance is placed on their fidelity in the state of ignorance. — 
 But if ignorance is some security against these attempts of 
 the slaves, it gives them, where they may be made, a cha- 
 ractc!' ten thousand fold more hon-ible : it gives them the 
 character of tygers : it leaves thorn without the check of 
 principle or reflection, or any of the proper feelings of the 
 human heart, abandoned to the fury of wild beasts. This 
 lias been the character of negro insmrections every where ; 
 and servile wars have in all countries borne the same stamp. 
 They have spared neither age nor sex. It is not a war of 
 conquest — not a struggle for power on the part of the slave: 
 it seems only directed to revenge — and a revenge the most 
 deadly : to be satiated with nothing but indiscriminate mas- 
 sacre and universal exteiniinuion. Such was the war that 
 desolated St. Domingo. But that monument of the tremen- 
 dous despair of slaves, is contempl.Ued with composure by 
 those who ha\e the same clemcius of dexaotalion f)Cht up 
 
in the bosom of their own country. That awful beacon, 
 which threw its baleful gleam upon our very shores, seems 
 to have given its warning in vain. Because such convul- 
 sions are like those of nature, of rare occurrence, men sleep 
 on, like the inhabitants of countries subject to earthquakes, 
 till the mortal throes begin. But in the one case as in the 
 other, the elements of the earthcjuake and volcano need but 
 a spark to explode them. Both alike burst without warn- 
 ing, and sweep the face of the earth with equal relentless- 
 ness. But in the one case, the elements of convulsion are 
 still under our controul : it is yet, by the blessing of heav- 
 en, in our own power to determine whether (hey shall be 
 neutralized by die progressive diirusion of knowledge and 
 emancipation, or whether they shall be smothered till they 
 are ripe for explosion ; for explode they must and will, at 
 some future pei'iod, keep them in as abject ignorance as you 
 may: and when that comes, though it may yet be distant, 
 by how much the more ignorant and degraded they are in 
 their moral character, by so much the more tremendous and 
 unsparing will be the visitation. 
 
 But though there might be no danger whatever, to be ap- 
 prehended from the slaves while they remained in their 
 present state 6f ignorance, it may be a topic deserving the 
 consideration of the present generation of slave-holders, or 
 at furthest of their immediate descendants, whether it will 
 be in their power to keep them in ihis state perpetually. 
 The tide of intelligence runs in this country, as well as in 
 Europe, every day with a wider channel and a more rapid 
 current. Can the master calculate on their perpetual igno- 
 rance in such a country ? They surely cannot with much 
 certainty, and if once the slaves become as intelligent as the 
 laboring class of people in the nou-slaveholding States, with 
 whom some slave-holders have most insolently compared 
 them, they may depend on this ; that they will soon be as 
 free. They will tlien never rest till they have made some 
 advantage of their accession of intelligence. They will obey 
 the impulse that they v/ill then receive li'om every thing 
 around them, and this country may, when that day arrives, 
 atone doubly to the race for their wrongs. But heaven 
 avert such a day. May knowledge never come to them if it 
 is to find them groaning in unrelaxing slavery ; but rather 
 may knowledge and freedom, hand in hand, gradually lead 
 them to a condition in which they will cease to be a terror 
 and a reproach to our country. 
 
 The system of negro slavery h peculiarly dangerous in a 
 political point of view : it is more so than any other ijpecies 
 of&lavery which hcfs prevailed in other times and ether coun- 
 
24 
 
 tries. Slavery existetl among the Romans : tliry liad sbtvcs 
 principally taken in wrir ; but, always of nations that resem- 
 bled them in complexion. As the practice of emancipation 
 was very extensive, and no impediment whatever was 
 thi'own in its way ; and as they resembled, in complexion, 
 the people amonji; whom they were cast, they fell natural- 
 ly and easily into society as soon as they were emancipateei. 
 Thus, some freedmen were of the most respectable men in 
 ancient Rome. This class of men was incorporated with- 
 out diflkulty and without scruple with the great body of the 
 people. The same observations are strictly applicable to 
 the villenage which prevailed in feudal time^i in England. 
 They were both completely at contrast, in these respects, 
 with negro slavery. Accordingly, Rome escaped with oniv 
 one servile war, which, however, brought her to the brink of 
 ruin. But the ease with which slaves, in both tiicse r;ation?, 
 became members of the society in which they were, became 
 incorporated with it to all intents, gave them no inconsidera- 
 ble stake in the interrsls of that sociefif. They looked natu- 
 rally, therefore, to emancipation for freedom, rather than to 
 insurrection and servile wars. But the negro slave has no 
 such facility of becoming incorporated with the society 
 around him. He has, therefore, no such stake in it : nature 
 herself has pronounced an eternal i-e/o upon his incorporation 
 with it. He has no check, no restraint, in consequence, 
 upon his inclination, if he should ever harbour one, to free 
 hi-nsclf by insurrection and massacre. 
 
 But, to these and all other motives that have been urged 
 for excluding slavery from the limits of the contemplated 
 -Stnte of Missouri, and for confming it within the limits 
 ■which it now occupies, it has been answered, that, by ad- 
 mitting slaves in Missouri, slavery is not extended, it is only 
 ■dijluscd. This ludicrous argument for the extension of the 
 limits of slavery, it would be better worthwhile to preserve 
 OS a curiosity than to answer. So it seems, that the moral 
 and political curses of slavery are to be diluted by spreading 
 them over a greater extet)t of territory! It is said, how- 
 ever, that the number of slaves would not be increased by 
 it. This, at least, is certain, if I mistake not, that they 
 would be increased in Missouri. y\s to the number of ski ve^ 
 hv\u<i decreased in the present slave States by the migration 
 to Missouri, nobody who has the least acquaintance with 
 the pi-inciples of population will for a moment exjiect or be- 
 lic\c it. It is a first principle, familiar to <;vory man at all 
 conversant with the subject, that when the population of a 
 country has attaiirod a certain proportion lo its means of sub- 
 sistence and the demand for labour, it ceases to increase : 
 
25 
 
 II becomes stationary, until propelled again by some new 
 call for industry by the increase of capital and subsistence. 
 But, long before that period arrives, a country of a tolerably 
 dense population, will send out numerous colonies and peo- 
 ple vast territories, without sensibly affecting the increase at 
 home. The increase in years during which colonies do 
 not migrate, will be the same with that in years which fur- 
 nish thousands for migration. The population receives a 
 fresh impetus from the emigration itself. It is like, it is ia 
 fact, a new call for the industry of the population. This 
 would be the case with the slave population upon the ex- 
 tension of slavery to Missouri. It would be opening a new 
 market, a new consumption for slaves. The trade of rais- 
 ing them would in consequence thrive more in other States. 
 Thus, Missouri would become blackened with slaves, and 
 they never the whiter. It is only by reducing the demand 
 for slaves that you reduce the number. But whether the 
 whole number of slaves in the Union is to be increased by 
 the extension of slavery to Missouri or not, whether it is dif- 
 fusing it or extending it, this is clear; that the moral and 
 political evils of it are to be extended or diffused, no mat- 
 ter which, over the vast State of Missouri. Whether diffus- 
 ed or extended can make no great difference to her in their 
 malignancy. This miserable substitute for sophistry, about 
 the df(^Ms/on of slavery, cannot impose on any man. The 
 State of Missouri is still under the protecting guardianship 
 of the Union, and, though she has disappointed the forlorn 
 hope of those who had looked to the good sense and princi- 
 ple of her citizens for a prohibition, it is not yet too late for 
 Congress to remedy the mischief. 
 
 That remedy is to reject the present application of the 
 State, and all her applications for admission into the Union, 
 until she shall by her constitution prohibit slavery forever; 
 or to declare at once that it shall be prohibited forever as 
 the condition of her admission into the Union. A large ma- 
 jority of the House of Representatives has already manifest- 
 ed a determination to arrest the progress of this national ca- 
 lamity and disgrace. They arc now called on, by every 
 consideration that can address itself to men's consciences, 
 their hearts or their understandings, to interpose and stay 
 the plague. Their solemn duty to the inhabitants of the 
 territory over which they yet retain a constitutional guardi- 
 anship, their duty to themselves and their posterity, demand 
 imperiously that they should reject the State or insist on the 
 condition. As they value the welfare of Missouri herself — 
 of the unborn thousands hereafter to inhabit that extensive 
 territory — they are called on to reject her till she renounces 
 
26 
 
 her suicidal designs against it. But in anotViPr and a pecuT- 
 iar manner does this subject address itself to the non-slave- 
 holding States. As they vali5e their own best and dearest 
 political rights, and those of their posterity, they are called 
 on to resist further inroads on them. The suHVages which 
 the slaves confer on their masters, was the most important 
 and most dangerous concession made by the non-slavehold- 
 ing to the slave States, when the constitution was formed. 
 It is no less than conceding them a greater proportional num- 
 ber of representatives than we enjoy — giving them a greater 
 political influence than we possess. It is no other than to 
 mete out two difTerent measures of political 7ueight to the slave 
 and non-slaveholding States. In the one, their political 
 weight in the government is measured by the number of free 
 persons : — in the other, not by the number of free persons ; 
 That would not satisfy them. The some rule of representa- 
 tion would not answer for them. They insisted on one that 
 would give them more than they would have by the same 
 rule. Three-fifths of the slaves were at last conceded, as 
 the advantage which the slave States were to possess over 
 the others in the ratio of representation. If Missouri is to 
 be admitted as a slave State, and to emulate the othcis in 
 the business of rearing slaves ; if the field of operation is thus 
 to be widened, there can be no difficulty in perceiving that 
 upon the principles of population and demand the whole 
 number of slaves in the Union must be increased by just so 
 many as there is a demand for in Missouri. There will be 
 a press of slaves into that from the old slave States ; and the 
 more rapid increase of the native slaves, together with the 
 help of smuggling from abroad, which has not entirely ceas- 
 ed, will soon supply their places there. Those (lansportcd 
 to Missouri will goon populating still more rapidly, as the 
 demand there will, fiom obvious causes, be greater — and in 
 fine, the whole number of slaves in Missouri would be added 
 to the weight of the slave representation in Congress. And 
 will the representatives of the free States in that body still 
 go on increasing the extent of this concession to slavery ? — 
 Will they continue to make further surrenders of our just 
 rights and our just and equal political influence in the gov- 
 ernment of the nation ? The number of representatives given 
 by slaves would decide the fate of almost every great ques- 
 tion which arises in that body. It may conlroul the destinies 
 of the nation in cases where a few voices would turn the 
 scale. This is the concession which we are called on to 
 continue as we began. What could compensate us for this ? 
 Nothing could be an equivalent for such an unhallowed 
 compromise of our best rights and the incalculable interests 
 
27 
 
 they involve. What are we to receive in return for it? Not 
 even kind words : — It is to be extoried by threats and repaid 
 with contumely. 
 
 As immediately connected with my present subject, I am 
 obliged to advert to the necessity which Missouri has her- 
 self imposed on Congress of rejecting her present applica- 
 tion for admission into the Union. The condition, express- 
 ed as well as implied, of her authority to form a State con- 
 stitution was, that it should " contain no provision repug- 
 nant to the constitution of the United States" : But the con- 
 stitution of Missouri contains a provision which violates it in 
 such a manner that Congress cannot overlook it. It is too 
 clear and palpable, as well as too evidendy intended. I 
 allude to that {)rovision of the eonstitution of Missouri which 
 prohibits free blacks and mulattoes from imigration and set- 
 tlement in that State. Free blacks and mulattoes are un- 
 questionably citizens of the States in which they are born 
 and reside, as much as any other persons. In some of the 
 States they are even allowed the privilege of voting at elec- 
 tions. In the State of New- York tliey possess it. That, 
 however, is not necessary to constitute them citizens. Birth 
 or naturalization is all that is necessary : and free blacks 
 and mulattoes are in consequence citizens. Of this there 
 can be no doubt. This article in the constitution of Missou- 
 ri is therefore a direct violation of that article of the consti- 
 tution of the U. S. which provides that " the citizens of each 
 State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of 
 citizens in the several States." It is an intentional viola- 
 tion : It seems to have been designed as an insult to those 
 members of Congress who would have " fettered freemen," 
 forsooth! with a restriction upon slavery. This infringe- 
 ment of the constitution of the U. S. none will probably at- 
 tempt to palliate. But it will be said that as it is manifestly 
 repugnant to the constitution, it is therefore tjojc/; and Con- 
 gress need not reject the State on that account, for the pur- 
 pose of havmg it expunged by the people of it. The judi- 
 ciary, it will be said, will set it to rights immediately. — 
 This answer would be undoubtedly true as to its being void ; 
 but that Congress ought not therefore to reject the State, is 
 the farthest from truth conceivable. The considerations 
 which require it to reject her are not to be thus parried. — 
 The State of Missouri has, by this article, so manifestly and 
 intentionally in violation of the constitution of tke United 
 ^A: States, shown her disposition to resist its operation in this 
 particular, if occasion should require. She has, in defiance 
 of that, prohibited the entrance of free blacks, and virtually 
 saidj "1 have excluded them: get them in against my will 
 
28 
 
 if you can." — Nor is there the least doubt that this is the 
 tone both of feeling and language in that territory at pre- j 
 
 sent. The first question therefore for Congress to determine |j 
 
 is, whether they will maintain that respect for the constitu- 
 tion of the United States which theii- own respect for it, their 
 self-respect, and their regard for their own authority, re- 
 quire them to maintain? If they determine that they will, as 
 they are solemnly bound to do, maintain this, and are still 
 urged, on the other hand, that as this article in the constitu- 
 tion of Missouri is repugnant to that of the U. S. it is void ; 
 and if attempted to be enforced, redress may be had in the 
 Supreme Court of the U. S. ; — if, I say, this is urged, I would 
 appeal to every member of Coiigress, whatever his senti- 
 ments may be on restriction, whether it is fair, whether it 
 is just or honorable, thus to shift off" from themselves the task 
 of resisting this encroachment on the constitution upon that 
 venerable tribunal ? It presents itself to Congress immedi- 
 ately, looking them full in the face with a stare of defiance. 
 It is evidently the intention of the State to maintain it by ev- 
 ery means in its power. It is therefore for Congress to de- 
 cide whether it will by its authority annul it, and all pre- 
 tensions in its support, at once, by obliging the State to ex- ' 
 gunge it, or whether it will leave it as materials for a future 
 struggle between this hopeful member of the Union and the 
 supreme tribunal of the nation. If Congress could be cer- 
 tain that the State would peaceably submit to the decision 
 of that tribunal, still it would be highly proper — I do not 
 deem it too much to say-that it is its duli/ — when it is so di- 
 rectly called on, and has it so easily in its power to do it — 
 to resist and remedy this inroad on the constitution, instead 
 of leaving it as a legacy to that Court. Congress is guar- 
 dian of the constitution, as well as the Supreme Court. In 
 all matters which pass under its legislative cognizance it is 
 as much bound to make that sacred instrument observed as 
 the Supreme Court is in cases which pass under its judicial 
 cognizance. It is as much bound to cause it to be observed 
 in all such cases as it is to observe it itself. It is its duty to 
 exercise a vigilance in guarding it from the encroachments 
 of any State, as well as in guarding it from the infringe- 
 ments of the Executive. It ought never to shift from itself 
 this high and solemn trust. It ought to exercise this high- 
 est of its constitutional functions with firmness whenever it 
 is required. It would be unworthy that body to endeavour 
 and labour to rid itself of that most sacred of"its duties, " of^^ 
 maintaining the constitution in full authority and respect,"^iK 
 when a violation of it is passing under its constitutional su- 
 pervision. That body should be equLtlly vigilant in observ- 
 
29 
 
 incf and in enarding it. It is into its hands that the hi^h du« 
 ty is in the fiist instance committed, oi preserving it invio- 
 late and respected. It cannot therefore rid itself of that, 
 with any justice or decency, by throv/iiiii; the task ujion the 
 Supreme Court, ev(;n if it were certain that its decision 
 wouUl be quietly submitted to. 
 
 But unfortunately, such seems to be the state of society 
 and of feeling in that territory, that it is scarcely probable 
 that the authority of the Judiciary would be submitted to 
 without commotion and violence. The spirit nianilcsted iii 
 the article in question itself, knowing as they must have 
 known, that it was in the face of the constitution, proves 
 that the infatuated inhabitants of the territory, are bent on 
 struggling against its authority and ojieration to the hi'^t. if 
 therefore. Congress abandon the task of vindicating it to 
 the Courts, the consequence will be that they will be insult- 
 ed and disturbed in the performance of their duty. They 
 will become obnoxious to infuriated partizans and mobs.. 
 The execution of their decrees will be litially resisted ; and 
 though no very notable rebellicni need be apprehended, the)'- 
 will continue to oppose it, till they are quelled by military 
 force. This Avill keep that part of the country in a state of 
 anxiety and alarm. Outrages and excesses will be the con- 
 sequences — and when, after all the resistance shall be sub- 
 dued in one instance, and the decree executed, the same 
 mob, or its fellow, will be ripe for the same scenes in anoth- 
 er instance. The cry of protecting their State Constitution, 
 will be the pretext, and an excellent one it will be to rouse a 
 deluded and inflamed multitude. Thesft*scenes, and their in- 
 definite repetition, it is in the power of Congress to prevent, 
 by rejecting the State till she expunges this article from her 
 Constitution. She will then have no pretext for violence, 
 and no one to direct it against. She will find herself obli- 
 ged to comply with a good grace. It will then leave no ral- 
 lying point lor sedition in her Constitution. Congress will 
 have done its duty ; and after such a spirit and firmness ex- 
 hibited upon the subject, the State of Missouri will scarce- 
 ly undertake to brave the Union. Besides, if this article ii 
 to be expunged, she will be less anxious for slavery itself. 
 She will not be fond of having slaves at the hazards which 
 are supposed to attend their contact with free blacks. This 
 may tend, though that is a consequence little to be cared 
 for, CD make the good people of Missouri submit with le.-si 
 murmuring, to the restriction upon slavery altogether ; " for 
 ' to this favor she must come at last." There is firmness 
 enough left yet to adhere to the path where every guide of 
 conduct that we dare to acknowledge, directs us. That 
 
30 
 
 t 
 
 course is plain and direct, and unclogcred with any difficul- 
 ty that really merits a moment's attention ; it is to declare, at, 
 the time of her rejection, that she shall he admitted into the 
 Union onlij on condition that slavery shall be prohibited by her 
 Constitution, and that prohibition to be perpetual. 
 
 To shake the firmness which would adopt a course thus 
 clearly warranted by the Constitution, and dictated by con- 
 siderations so numerous and so vast in their import, one 
 means has been resorted to which 1 cannot pass without no- 
 tice. I allude to the threats which have been openly made 
 hv the representatives of the slave States, ofa dissolution of 
 the Union! This has been done on (he floor of Congress. 
 It has been done by olhers out of doors. It was not met in 
 Congress as it deserved. It even alarmed many friends of 
 restriction, both in and out of Congress. Instead of those 
 puerile apprehensions, it ought to have excited no other 
 emotion than contempt and indignation. But in Congress, 
 some of the members friendly to restriction seemed to be 
 struck with dismay at the bare sound. Even those who 
 regarded it as an idle threat, did not treat it in that manner. 
 Now and then a note of defiance was heard from them, but it 
 was soon drowned by the boisterous threats of the members 
 from the slave States. If this threat moved our pity less, 
 wc might be able to do it justice : But we can scarcely afford 
 any thing but derision for it. What can be more ridicu- 
 lous than a threat to dissolve the Union, because a new State 
 cannot be admitted with slavery? This is like the impotent 
 menaces of a froward child. Surely the interest of the slave 
 States is as strong and deep in the Union as that of the non- 
 slaveholding. The vast and incalculable interests of both 
 in it, are a sufficient security against a severance upon any 
 such occasion. However high the passion into which our 
 Southern brethren may lash themselves upon this subject, 
 they will never be guilty of such a madness as to attempt a 
 severance oi' the Union. Their interest in making Missouri 
 a slave State, is nut proportioned to their interest in the na- 
 tional confederacy. If Missouri is admitted with restriction, 
 they lose nothing ; or nothing, at least, but a market for 
 slaves. If they dissolve the Union, they lose every thing 
 ^vhich they, as well as we, ought politically to prize. The 
 very prospect would make them, turn as pale as ourselves. 
 This nation, which has enjoyed a prosperity unparalleled, 
 would become tlic prey of wars. For peace could never be 
 maintained between two powers which separated in such a 
 spirit, and where so many things would occur at every turn 
 to disturb their amity. The slaves of those Stales would 
 i)robably be the first subject of contention, and would kindle 
 
61 
 
 a war immediately. The non-slavcholding States, H tlic 
 slave States retired in a body, would never bind themselves 
 to deliver up the slaves which might take refuo;e in their 
 territory. They would be protected aj^ainst the demand 
 of their masters. It is easy to see that runaway slaves 
 under such circumstances would abound. This would 
 lead to hostilities between them in the event. )Vhc 
 would have most to gain or lose in that event, it is not ne- 
 cessary to discuss. That event is one which neither party 
 •would court. It is an event which must appal both. Can 
 any rational man therefoi-e believe that either would act thus 
 madly ? Mow ridiculous then to hold out such threats as 
 these to deter us from a course pressed on us by the high mo- 
 tives presented here. Would that some Ames or some 
 Hamilton had been there to have heard this disgraceful and 
 ridiculous threat ! Those who uttered it would then have 
 found that in conjuring up this spectre of disunion to frighten 
 men from the ground of duty, they had called up other spir- 
 its which they could not so easily remand to sleep ; spir- 
 its that would never have yielded to threats, what their con- 
 sciences and their trivst forbade them to yield to arguments* 
 But it was the fate of this sacred cause to have some pru- 
 dent or some dastardly advocates. There were some who 
 were not ashamed to say, in defence of a vote for the exten- 
 sion of slavery, that they did it to save the Union ! I Yes : 
 they confessed themselves cowards and fools and traitors! 
 They acknowledged that they suflcred themselves to be 
 brow-beaten and threatened in the \ cry hall of legislation 
 itself, into a vote that their better reason forbade and con- 
 demned ! 
 
 As to those who voted against this restriction from honest, 
 though mistaken constitutional scruples, they have a claim 
 to forbearance. But in the shape in which this question is 
 to be presented to them at the ensuing session, they can 
 have no room or excuse for those scruples. Those who 
 made, if any such there were, those scruples a pretext be- 
 fore, can no longer cloak their real motives under them. The 
 question then before them will be, whether they will admit 
 a slave State, or reject it, till it interdicts slavery. 'J'he right 
 of Congress to admit or rcjrct a State, as it sees fit, ihc laost 
 doughty of those gentlemen can have no constitutional scru- 
 ples upon. If therefoi'e they are tiiic to thcii' own former 
 professions — that they were sincerely opposed to slaveiy, 
 and only forliore to vote for restriction in that shape, be- 
 cause they believed the Constitution was opposed to that 
 shape ; I say, if they are now true to those professions of 
 which they were then so lavisli, they must rr-i'-ct Missouri, 
 
32 » 
 
 till she conspnts to intcrJiot slavory. Let not tliosc nor any 
 other men be deterred from pursuing this course liy any 
 threats of disunion. If it were certain that the firm fulfil- 
 ment of the trust reposed in them would even determine the 
 Southern part of the Union to withdraw from it, their duty 
 and course would remain unaltered. God forbid that we 
 should shrink from our duty from a dread of any conse- 
 quences that the infatuation and folly of those States may 
 lead to. God forbid that our rights should be extorted from 
 us by any threats. If we are to surrender all at the alterna- 
 tive of a dissolution of the Union, there can be but one voice 
 among us. If the Union can no longer be governed by a 
 majority of Congress ; if the constitutional authority of that 
 body is to be set at naught by threats of dissolution on eve- 
 ry occasion that may touch the feelings or the interests ofa 
 certain portion of the Union, then I say unhesitatingly, the 
 sooner such a Union is dissolved, the better will it be for 
 both parties. It must sooner or later be dissolved, if such 
 a spirit is cherished and yielded to. If we are prepared to» 
 surrender and compromise all our rights at the first threat of 
 disunion, let the Union remain upon these terms : but let 
 the terms of capitulation he understood; let it be under- 
 V stood that when certain States fancy themselves aggrieved 
 
 by the operation of an act of Congress, a threat of disunion 
 • is to overthrow it forever, be it as politic and expedient as 
 
 it may. Who can Ibrcsee on what occasions and to what 
 
 V purposes this threat may be put in exercise? Let such a 
 
 precedent be once set, — that wherever there is a collision of 
 views and sentiments, a threat of disunion is to carry every 
 point, and on every great question it will be the all-prevail- 
 ing argument. The Union must then be dissolved by one 
 parly or the other in self-defence. Indeed, if once this 
 principle is submitted to, if threats of disunion, loud and 
 boisterous, as those we have hoard, are to prevail against 
 reason and conviction, the Union is already dissolved. — 
 The terms of the confederation are violated and though the 
 form may remain, the substance and the spirit are gone. 
 Where is the question of national concern in which this di- 
 versity of views and warmth of discussion may not take place, 
 and oil which it may not be found convenient to resort to 
 this dernier argument? On questions of revenue, on qucs- * 
 
 tions of peace or war — on every great political question aris- i 
 
 ing in Congress, a certain portion of the Union may find it '^ 
 
 convenient to resort to it. If it is to be omnipotent in the 
 hands of any party, or any geographical section of the coun- 
 tiy, we have but the mockery ofa Congress, and the mocke- 
 ry of an Union. 
 
33 
 
 We are therefore bound, as we esteem all that is guaran- 
 teed by the federal compact, to repel this threat, and set it 
 now and forever at defiance. This is said upon the suppo- 
 sition that it is something more than an idle threat. There is 
 nothing whatever to be apprehended from this source, but if 
 any should by possibility think that there may be, they will 
 perceive that, deplorable as that alternative is, it is to be de- 
 plored less than the situation we should be reduced to, if 
 every thing is to be surrendered to threats of disunion. — • 
 That would be a state subjecting us to a humiliation of our 
 feelings and character and a prostration of all our interestSo 
 These could be better protected and better encouraged in 
 any other conceivable condition. But these 'threats of dis- 
 solving the Union would, if they could be considered for a 
 moment in a serious light, deserve far other notice than any 
 I have bestowed upon them. They bear however too plain- 
 ly the stamp of madness to excite any thing but a smile. — 
 Let it be said as loudly and as often as its authors may think 
 proper, henceforth it will not even serve to frighten puling 
 babies, much less " babies of a larger growth." The latter 
 have recovered from their fright, and their nerves are better 
 braced. Away then with these froward threats of dissolv- 
 ing the Union : but above all, let us hear no more of this 
 folly of saving the Union by a compromise of duty and rights. 
 While we have an Union, let us have its advantages ; and 
 whri'n we can have them no longer, when the very basis and 
 spirit of it are abrogated by threats of disunion, let both 
 parties have the benefit of disunion : but let us have no gov- 
 ernment of threats. To submit io force is sometimes neces- 
 sary, and when we are overpowered by a superior one there 
 is no disgrace in submitting to it: but to submit to threats 
 is disgraceful and cowardly : It is as impolitic as it is dis- 
 honorable. 
 
 As to the menacing attitude of Missouri herself, few words 
 will dispatch that subject. It is true that the State of Vir- 
 ginia has resolved, in General Assembly, to support her in 
 resisting the authority of the Union. It was the most inso- 
 lent attempt to overawe Congress in its deliberations, and 
 the most contemptuous. outrage on its authority, that a legis- 
 lative body could be guilty of. It would disgrace a Parisian 
 mob. The Legislature of Virginia, she who would fain be- 
 lieve herself the crtp«7a/ of our political column, resolved, 
 in the face of the nation, tliat it would resist the authority of 
 Congress if it dared to decide against its views. The re- 
 solve to which I allude, spoke this in language not to be mis- 
 understood. That Legislature resolved, deliberately and 
 solemnly, that they would join Missouri ^^ in resisting with 
 
 Li 
 
 L«rc. 
 
34 
 
 manly fortitude'^'' any attempts of Congress to exclude slave- 
 ry from her. This is the language of insurrection and of 
 treason. AVhcthcr it was intended as a threat which they 
 were ready to execute, or as a mere bravado, it is almost e- 
 qually reprehensible. But whichever it was intended for, 
 we have no fears on that head. We trust there is " manly 
 fortitude" elsewhere as well as in Virginia ; a "manly forti- 
 tude" that will not shrink from the line of duty at the combi- 
 ned threais of Virginia and Missouri. All must see how vain 
 and impotent such threats are, in a nation composed of elements 
 like ours. But if Missouri is prepared to " resist with manly 
 fortitude" the authority of the Union, in the event of her re- 
 jection, this is. in itself the very strongest reason why she 
 should not be admitted into it. What! shall a portion of our 
 national territory force itself as a State into the Union 
 by threats of raising war against us if she is not admitted/ 
 By threatening, with a population of 40,000 souls, to raise 
 the standard of rebellion and independence ? If the State ol 
 Missouri contains such elements of disorganization and dis- 
 union, she is not fit for a member of this or any other gov- 
 ernment as an independent State. Congress ought, it is its 
 imperious duty, to keep it in the territorial condition, until 
 the population assumes a different character ; until it mani- 
 fests a disposition of submission to lawful and constituted 
 authority. If she should think proper to raise the standard 
 of rebellion and independence, it will be time enough w,hen 
 the Union is in danger of being conquered by her, to sub- 
 mit to terms of her dictating. Never, before that period, 
 will any man who is faithful to the government and constitu- 
 tion of his country, yield a jot to her threats of rebellion. — 
 perhaps she may have 
 
 r-. — -" A thousand fpirifs in one breast. 
 
 To answer twenty thousand such as ours''* — • 
 
 but we are in no great dread cither of the experiment or the 
 result of it, if she should think proper to make it. 
 
 The conduct of Missouri in another respect, lias given her 
 no title to favor. Since authority was given her to form a 
 State Constitution, she has proceeded to organize a Con- 
 vention, and no sooner have the wisdom and prudence of 
 that body put one together, such as it is, than without wait- 
 ing for the final vote of admission or rejection from Con- 
 gress, they push on without any sanction or authority to put 
 their new form of government into operation. If a State 
 must be admitted as a matter of course, after it has forme'd 
 a Constitution, without any regard to its ))rovisions, it would 
 give it no right to proceed without the formal sanction of 
 
<* 35 
 
 Congress. But so far from its being a matter ot course and 
 a matter of mere form, it is a most substantial preliminary 
 to its assuming the functions of an independent State. Tiiis 
 doctrine none will deny. It is of the very essence, it is ne- 
 cessary to the legal existence of a State thus formed, that it 
 he admitted into the Union. Till that act is consummated, 
 the State has no constitutional being. It is a non-entity. 
 Every consideration of right and delicacy forbade her fo 
 take the reins of administration into her own hands, until 
 her constitutional being was consummated by a formal and 
 constitutional admission into the Union. But her passion 
 for self-government seems to have equalled her fitness for it. 
 She puts her new form of government instantly into opera- 
 tion, and without taking the trouble to submit her Constitu- 
 tion to Congress, she sets up an independent and sovereign 
 State on her own bottom. The first intelligence announced 
 to us from this still inchoate 3tate is, that her new Govern- 
 or is making speeches and her new legislature making laws ; 
 and all by virtue of a Constitution, which Congress, to whom 
 it belongs to see and approve it, has never seen or as yet 
 heard of. This, every man who will take the trouble to ex- 
 amine the Constitution of the United States, will pronounce 
 downright usurpation. What therefore does all this hasty 
 and intemperate conduct of Missouri indicate, and to what 
 does it lead? It indicates such a spirit of contempt and re- 
 <5istance of the authority of Congress as never can be suffer- 
 ed to pass unchecked, if that body discharge their duty to 
 themselves and to the Union. The citizens of that State, or 
 their ill-advised leaders, have attempted, and have indeed 
 been successful in the attempt, to wrest from Congress their 
 constitutional power and authority over the territory. The 
 policy of Missouri in this hasty and unwarranted step is 
 very obvious. It is the low cunning of making sure of their 
 new Constitution with all its defects, by putting it into im- 
 mediate operation. Their new Governor, chosen under it^ 
 assumes his functions immediately ; their legislature, chosen 
 under it, fall immediately to the work of legislation, that so 
 Congress may be deterred from disturbing the new order of 
 things. This is an open defiance of their authority. Mis- 
 souri has thrown the gauntlet, and if there is a spark of cou- 
 rage, or the least sense of duty left in that body, they will 
 not be slow in taking it up. Most unquestionably, that Gov- 
 ernor and that Legislature had no right to assume the func- 
 tions of a State under their new Constitution, until their ex- 
 istence as a State was recognized and consummated by Con- 
 gress. But Missouri, it seems, is too free to wait for that. 
 1 enquire, to what do such proceedings lead ? But it can- 
 
 \ 
 
ob 
 
 not be necessary to shew to what examples of nisubordiiia- 
 tion must lead. It cannot be necessary to point out the con- 
 sequences that must attend such usurpation if it is thus quiet- 
 ly and tamely submitted to. It is the end of allauthorit}- 
 
 of all security to be derived from Compacts and Constitu- 
 tions. Our rights and our interests become the sport of oth- 
 ers' intemperance and contempt. If Missouri is to be ad- 
 mitted into this Union in despite of a constitutional majority 
 in Congress, then farewell law — and farewell order : if she 
 may thus brave the authority of Congress and force her way 
 into the Union, then farewell our Constitution and farewell 
 all it guarantees : It has become the " rope of sand" which 
 its enemies long ago predicted it would be, if such things are 
 tolerated under it. 
 
 It is not difficult to foresee that much stress will be at- 
 tempted to be laid on the idea of a fancied compromise at the 
 last session. It will be recollected that the two bills for the 
 admission of Maine, and for granting authority to Missouri 
 to form a State Government, were coupled in one in the 
 Senate, and a majority of that body refused to separate them. 
 Under these circumstances those who were anxious for the 
 admission of Maine, in the House of Representatives, found 
 themselves compelled to vote for the authority to Missouri 
 without restriction. It is much to be regretted that some of 
 the Representatives of Maine were in so great a haste to be 
 admitted as a State. The artifice of coupling the two bills 
 together, was an artifice too low and too stale to deserve 
 even the name of cunning. But because those who were in 
 favor of the admission of Maine, found themselves obliged, 
 if they would attain that object, to vote for authority to Mis- 
 souri to form a State government, did they compromise their 
 right to reject Missouri if her Constitution was exception- 
 able ? Between whom was any compromise whatever 
 made ? But above all, who betrayed his trust so far as to 
 consent to such terms of compromise as these r* Surely there 
 was no express understanding that members bound them- 
 selves by their vote to allow Missouri to form a Constitution 
 of State government, to vote for her final admission into the 
 Union, let her Constitution be what it might ; nor will any 
 man have the hardihood to contend that there was such a 
 tacit compact. But no body can be imposed on by this spe- 
 cious cant of compromise. It was not a compromise in any 
 point of view. The friends of restriction gave up every 
 thing and its enemies gave up nothing. There was noth- 
 ing else in controversy but restriction upon Missouri, and 
 that was compromised by its friends. What concession was 
 made upon the subject of restriction on .Missouri to those 
 
 ■A 
 
37 
 
 who advocated it? None — not the shadow of a concession 
 on that subject. As to the restriction on slavery in the ter- 
 ritory North of 36d. 30m. — this had nothing whatever to 
 do with restriction in Missouri. It was altogether as distinct 
 from that as Maine was from Missouri. But if that is to be 
 considered as a concession, let it be thrown back to those 
 who made it. If the friends of restriction on Missouri had 
 voluntarily renounced all right and power to check slavery 
 in the territory of the United States, I would have applaud- 
 ed the consistenci/ qf the man who made so infamous a re- 
 nunciation ; but to retain the principle, and to give up the 
 exercise of it in the most extensive and the most important 
 ifistance, is no compromise: it was a surrender^ and as 
 disgraceful as impolitic. But it is a surrender which we may 
 yet retrieve, and which we are hound to retrieve. This is a 
 subject which admits of no compromise. There is no dilli- 
 culty in making this cantofcompromi.se a cloak and an ex- 
 cuse for surrendering every right which we hold dear and 
 sacred as members of the national government, if every thing 
 may be thus compromised. As we concede our rights, the 
 demands on the other hand must rise, and when we have 
 parted with all our firmness and all our rights, we may dig- 
 nify the surrender by the name of compromise. But if sucii 
 a dereliction is to be cliaracterizcd by that name, compromise 
 will hereafter become synonimus with surrmdcr and bctraij. 
 It will hereafter convey an idea as contemptible as sun-ender 
 and as infamous as treachery. 
 
 Cases most unquestionably there are, everyday, in v.hich 
 mutual concession by legislative parties is extremely prop- 
 er and politic. But even this must have its limits. Com- 
 promise, on subjects respecting which different views of 
 policy and expediency are entertained, is very often proper 
 and necessary. But to compromise justice and principle 
 and duty, who would consent to such a compromise ? It is 
 impossible that any can take place which involves such con- 
 cessions. 
 
 But to talk of compromise where there is no viidualiti/, is 
 most idle and most ridiculous. Here the compromise is all 
 on the side of the advocates of restriction. It is they who 
 compromise everything, without a concession in return. 
 With what face then can any man talk oi' compromise in this 
 case ? Not only is this a subject on which no compromise 
 can be made without violence to principle and duty, but 
 even for a concession forbidden by them, not a shadow of a 
 return is made on the other hand. 
 
 Finally, this question of restriction on slavery in Missou- 
 ri ought only to be identified with the question of admitting, 
 
38 
 
 or ctxcludint/ slavery from the whole territory of the United 
 States. The pretence that s/ai'e.? are necessary to the cul- 
 tivation of any part of the territory West of the Mississippi, 
 U is in vain to set up. The white population born in the 
 most southern part of it, and emigrants who are inured to 
 the climate, are as capable of cultivating it as slaves. It 
 only needs to make the experiment. Jt is not any physical 
 disability that precludes the labor of the white population of 
 onr Southern climates, it is the disgrace which must ever 
 attend labor where there arc slaves only toperform it. But if 
 at all events, the more Southci'n parts of the territory must 
 be cultivated by blacks, let it be done by free and not by 
 hrvte blacks. Let the Southern part of that territory remain 
 a wilderness and dcsart, sacred to the range of unenslaved 
 beasts of the forest forever, rather than be polluted with the 
 tread of enslaved and brutalized human beings. 
 
 It is the fashion and the interest of our Southern brethren 
 to sneer at the idea of emancij)ation at any period, however 
 distant. If the practicability of emancipating 7ico-?-o slaves 
 nt all, with safety to themselves or society, were denied, we 
 might at once refute all such pretences by poi»iting to the 
 example of more than one State in the Union. They have 
 already proved that slaves may be safely emancipated. It 
 is equally feasible in the Southern States. It will only re- 
 .juire to be done gradually and prudently. Some sacrifices 
 would be necessary. But the present slave States would 
 reap all the advantage of them. It would be no triumph for 
 the non-slaveholding States. They would be no gainers in 
 point of interest. The I)laclvs, when emancipated, would in- 
 fest the Middle and Eastern States almost as much as the 
 Southern. The emigiation from the former to the latter, 
 would increase ten fold ; and produce an accumulation of 
 capital and an appreciation of pro|>crty, which would much 
 more than compensate them for all their sacrifices. Their 
 interests could not be more eH'cctually served ; those of the 
 non-slaveholding States would be rather disserved. But 
 God forbid that such considerations should damp our zeal. 
 Though no particular benefits are to result to us, it will be 
 a triumph of philanthrophy, freedom and justice. Visiona- 
 ry as this triumph may at this day apj^ear, much may be 
 done at no remote period, by the prevalence of knowledge 
 and the dispersion of prejudices. 
 
 If the various considerations involved in this subject, the 
 principal of which I have endeavored to exhibit in as few- 
 words as possible? be considered for a moment, it will be 
 seen how much regard is to be paid to those who would fain 
 stifle the question altogether, by insinuating that it has been 
 
tivctgiiilied by the warmth of debate iiilo greater importance 
 in the public view than it is intrinsically entitled to. If the 
 importance of it were to be measured by any simple one of 
 the considerations which it involves, it would justify all our 
 zeal. The question is not surely one of trivial import, which 
 involves the future well-being of a territory so extensive as 
 that of Missouri. It is not a small matter whether a State 
 that in point of extent is the second in the Union and ra- 
 pidly populating, should be peopled by freemen only, by a 
 hardy and intelligent yeomanry, free as the air they breathe, 
 or whether it shall be burdened atid disgraced with a slave 
 population, and that blackness of darkness scarcely be re- 
 lieved by the intermixture of petty despots. It is not a tri- 
 vial question whether a stand shall be made against the fur- 
 ther progress and encroachments of this mora! and political 
 curse, or whether it shall be permitted to spread itself over 
 the boundless regions West of the Mississippi, unchecked 
 and unrebuked in its course. Nor are any of the remaining 
 considerations to which I have adverted, much less trivial in 
 their nature than these. They are of a cast to rouse eve- 
 ry feeling that can be touched, and to call into action every 
 principle that can be appealed to, which we dare to ac- 
 knowledge. 
 
 There may have been attempts to intermingle with this mo- 
 mentous subject party views and party interests. These must, 
 fail of their aim ; and those, on the other hand, who think 
 to make use of these attempts to the injury of the cause we 
 are engaged in, Avill fail of their aim also. It is not from 
 such quarters that danger is to be apprehended : nor is it 
 from the quarter where a revival of this question is so much 
 deprecated that danger is to be apprehetided. Those who 
 have undertaken to point out to Congress the course proper 
 for it to pursue on this question, may very safely be left to 
 the full scope of their influence. With all the advantages 
 which their proximity to the scene ofdehalc may confer, it is 
 humbly trusted that their influence will not be very danger- 
 ous. They have laid all debate under their oHicial bun • but 
 if debate is thought expedient on this great question, it will 
 probably take place, without being under much restraint 
 iVom the well-timed and decorous monitions to which 1 al- 
 lude. But let me not be understood as enforcing the neces- 
 sity or propriety of a debate on the question. I should be 
 guilty of the same fault whicli I have hinted at in others if 
 1 did so. But this I might be free to declare, with the mon- 
 itor alluded to, that debate would be worse than useless, if 
 it is to be conducted in the manner and with the spirit which 
 pervaded that at the last session. However, I most cheer- 
 fully and humbly relinquish the c/;cstioti of Rebate or no de- 
 
40 
 
 bate to tlic uiailom of Cot)£;rcsJ:. I art not wiiiii is ^^»i(j — 
 it is what may be done, that every man in this iiation k in- 
 terested in. 
 
 Id conclusion, \vhat can be added / — To those \vho^(' 
 principle and judgment ai-e alceady pointing to the conrsc I 
 have endeavored to urge, nolhini; more can be addressed. 
 It can scarcely be necessary to reiterate the motives for theii 
 firmness which I have attempted to exhibit. If they will 
 not be made immovable at a bare statement, at a bare viev,- 
 of them, they would waver, though instead of the " small 
 voice" that now whis])ers them, Heaven itself should speak 
 to them in the voice of its thunder, if men can be lukewarm 
 wlitMi such motives for their zeal pre^s upon them, they 
 Mould be cold thonii;h the angel of the Apocalypse should 
 threaten, for their lukewarmness, to " remove their candle- 
 stick out of its place." If any who favour this cause are 
 ashamed of being zealous in it, let them renounce it, and 
 with it renounce the remnant of virtue they may have loft, 
 because it may pnt them to the blush. If any are afraid of 
 being zealous in it, if they can preserve or obtain any ad- 
 vantage by abandoning it, let them do it without scruple. 
 They will profit this cause more by an open derelictior. 
 than by an inert adherance to it. — God preserve it from all 
 such cold and lifeless advocates. 
 
 As to those who, in the face of all that has been and can 
 be urged, are determined to leave no n}ean untried to extend 
 slavery over RJissouri, argument and expostulation are e- 
 qually useless with them. If, however, we knew of any 
 principle by which we might conjure them, or of any feel- 
 ing to which we might appeal, we would conjure thera to 
 pause : we would humbly attempt to demonstrate to them 
 that their true interests, as well as their duty, pronounce ai. 
 interdict upon the course they have j)ursucd, and are so ben: 
 on pursuing, which may not be wisely or safely disregarded. 
 But on this subject we know of no |>rinciple of theirs that 
 may be addressed. As to their interests, they choose to con- 
 sult their immediate ones, or wliat they deem such, at the 
 hazard of more remote perils, and at the expense of more 
 remote but infinitely higher and better interests. With siJch 
 men nothing remains to be done but to resist their infatuation 
 as fn-ralv as in us lies. If it be successfully met, the resui 
 will be a triumph of the cause of truth and justice honorable 
 to its supporters and grateful to Heaven. Ifthat infatualioi; 
 should, in an evil hour, prevail, the worst will betide the con- 
 queror: But in the interval of suspense that remains, thi^ 
 solon)n though humble Caicat may be received wiih indul- 
 gence, and by the blessitig of Heaven may not be altogether 
 in vain.- —rr.;-