Glass. 
 
 £i 
 
 Book 
 
 
SPEECH 
 
 OP 
 ON THE 
 
 RESTRICTION OF SLAVERY 
 
 IN MISSOURI. 
 
 DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE 
 UNITED STATES, JANUARY 28, 1820. 
 
 Mr. SmVth, of Virginia, addressed the chair. 
 He said, that the constitutionality of the measure pro- 
 posed, was the subject which he intended first to con- 
 sider. The constitution (said he) provides that " new 
 states may be admitted by Congress into this Union." 
 I£ then, a new state is admitted into "this Union," must 
 it not be on terim of equality ? Can the old states, the 
 first parties to this Union, bind other states farther than 
 they themselves are bound? Can they bind the new 
 states not to admit slavery, and preserve to themselves 
 the right to admit slavery ? bhall the old states pre- 
 serve rights of which the new states shall be deprived ? 
 Can this government demand of the new states a right 
 to exercise powers over them, that it cannot exercise 
 over the old states ? If so, you may demand of the new 
 states power to legislate over them as you legislate over 
 the District of Columbia. Can you stipulate with a new 
 state that she shall have but one Senator; that her re. 
 presentation in this House shall be apportioned by the 
 number of her free inhabitants only ; that she shall not 
 appoint her full number of electors of the President ; or 
 that she shall not have a republican form of government? 
 You cannot : for the constitution fixes the rights of eve- 
 1 
 

 vy state in these respects. Can you stipulate for the Te- 
 g-illation of the press ; for the establishment of religion ; 
 or for a power to appoint militia officers ? You cannot; 
 for in these respects, also, the rights of the states are 
 declared by the constitution. And if you cannot stipu- 
 late for the exercise of a power prohibited, you cannot 
 stipulate for the exercise of a power withheld. 
 
 Will you not admit that you cannot stipulate for a pow- 
 er to appoint militia officers in a new state ? You will : 
 because that power is specially, and in direct terms, re- 
 served to the states. All powers not granted, are reserved, 
 in general terms. If the power is reserved, is it not the 
 same, whether it be reserved in direct or in general 
 terms ? It is the same. A power reserved to the states 
 or to the people, either in direct or in general terms, 
 you cannot exercise, without committing an act of usur« 
 pation. 
 
 The case supposed, of stipulating for power to appoint 
 militia officers, illustrates the danger which might arise 
 to freedom, by forming a new class of states, over which 
 this government should possess powers different from 
 those which it exercises over the old states. A conso- 
 lidated government might be established over such new 
 states. At the time of the revolution it was a cause of 
 complaint against the British King, that, by acquiring Ca- 
 nada, and establishing a despotic government therein, 
 he endangered the liberty of the American Colonies. — 
 The people would never have adopted the constitution 
 had they supposed that Congress was to exercise over 
 the new states powers different from those granted by 
 the constitution. 
 
 The legislative power of every state is originally co- 
 extensive. Each state, by the constitution, commits an 
 equal portion of its legislative power to Congress ; and 
 all the residue is reserved to thestates,(unless prohibited 
 to them,) or to the people. The only powers of this gov- 
 ernment are given by the constitution. The powers 
 granted are to be exercised over every state ; and the 
 powers reserved, are retained by every state. In Penn- 
 sylvania and in Virginia, the power to legislate respect- 
 ing slavery is in the legislature. In Ohio and Indiana 
 that power is in the people, who have denied it to their 
 legislatures. No power has been delegated to Con- 
 gress to legislate on that subject. The constitution pro- 
 vides that, «« The powers not delegated to the United 
 States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the 
 states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the 
 people." The powers not delegated, being reserved to 
 
the states respectively, are reserved to each of the states, 
 whether new or old. 
 
 Has the power to legislate over slavery been delegat- 
 ed to the United States- ? It has not. Has it been pro- 
 hibited to the states ? It has not. Then it is reserved to 
 the states respectively, or to the people. Consequent- 
 ly, it is reserved to the state of Missouri, or to the peo- 
 ple of that state. And any attempt, by Congress, to de- 
 prive them of this reserved power, will be unjust, tyran- 
 ical, unconstitutional, and void. 
 
 The only condition that may, constitutionally, be an- 
 nexed to the admission of a new state into this Union, is, 
 that its constitution shall be republican. This the con- 
 stitution authorises us to require, and it is the only con- 
 dition that is necessary. "We possess power to make all 
 needful regulations respecting the territorial property of 
 the United States. Our acts, in pursuance of the consti- 
 tution, are paramount to the laws of any state. When 
 we pursue our constitutional authority, we need no aid 
 from stipulations ; and when we exceed it, our acts are 
 acts of usurpation, and void. 
 
 It has been questioned by some, whether a constitu- 
 tion can be said to be republican, which does not ex- 
 clude slavery. But we must understand the phrase, "re- 
 publican form of government," as the people understood 
 it when they adopted the constitution. We are bound 
 by the construction which was put upon the constitution 
 by the people. It would be perfidious toward them to 
 put on the constitution a different construction from that 
 which induced them to adopt it. 
 
 The people of each of the states who adopted the 
 constitution, except Massachusetts, owned slaves : yet 
 they certainly considered their own constitutions to be 
 republican. And the federal government has not, by 
 virtue of its power to guarantee a republican constitution 
 to each state in the Union, required a change of the con- 
 stitution of any one of those states. 
 
 The constitution recognizes the right to the slave 
 property, and it thereby appears that it was intended by 
 the convention and by the people, that that property 
 should be secure. The representation of each state, in 
 this House, is proportioned by the whole number of free 
 persons, and three-fifths of the number of the slaves. In 
 forming the constitution, the southern states, Virginia 
 excepted, insisted on, and obtained a provision, authoriz- 
 ing them t© import slaves for twenty years, (a) And 
 
 (a) Extract from Lather Martin's report to the Legislature of 
 Maryland. 
 VVe were then told by the delegates of the two first of 
 those states, (Georgia and South Carolina,) that their states 
 
the constitution provides that slaves running 1 away from 
 their masters in one state, and going into another, shall 
 be delivered up to their masters. 
 
 But the gentleman from New York contended, that, 
 by a " person held to service or labor in one state, under 
 the laws thereof," the constitution means an apprentice, 
 or bound servant. Sir, the definition of a word conveys 
 its meaning to our understandings more clearly than the 
 word itself ; and the very best definition of the word 
 '• slave," that can be given, is, a person held to service or 
 labor under the laws of a state The constitution describes 
 apprentices or bound servants as "those bound to service 
 for a term of years;" and directs that they shall be included 
 in the number of free persons. The apprentice or bound 
 servant is bound to service or labor by contract ; the 
 slave is held to service or labor by law. A person "held 
 to service or labor" is the constitutional and legal defi- 
 nition of the word " slave," and is superadded to the 
 word " slave" or " slaves," in one act of Congress for 
 suppressing the slave trade no less than eight times, (b) 
 Thus the obligation of state laws, which hold men to 
 service or labor, is acknowledged by the constitution,and 
 by the laws of the United States. 
 
 To render this right, with other rights, still more se- 
 cure, Virginia, in adopting the constitution, declared 
 that " no right, of any denomination, can be cancelled, 
 abridged, restrained or modified, except in those instances 
 in which power is given by the constitution for those 
 
 ■would never agree to a system which put it in the power of 
 the general government to prevent the importation of slaves ; 
 and that they, as the delegates from those states, must withhold 
 their assent from such a system." 
 
 The clause referred to relates solely to the importation of 
 slaves from abroad. The convention used the words " migra- 
 tion or importation" as synonymous. In like manner they say, 
 tax or duty, alliance or confederation, imposts or duties, a- 
 greement or compact, service or labor, resolution or vote, for 
 the purpose of elucidating their meaning. This clause, at one 
 time, stood thus before the convention : " The migration or im- 
 portation of such persons as the several states, now existing, 
 shall drink proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the le- 
 gislature prior to the year 1800 ; but a tax or duty may be im- 
 posed on such migration or importation at a rate not exceeding 
 f he average ot the duties laid on *imports." This proposition 
 to lay an ad valorem duty shews that nothing was in the con- 
 templation of the convention but the slave trade. 
 
 (b) 4 vol. laws, p. 94. 
 
 * Printed " imposts ;" an obvious mistake. 
 
purposes ;" and New York declared, that " every power, 
 jurisdiction, and right, which is not by the said constitu- 
 tion clearly delegated to the Congress of the United 
 States, remains to the people of the several states, or to 
 their respective state governments." Several of the 
 other states made similar declarations. But the states 
 were not content to declare their rights. An amendment 
 to the constitution declares that, " The powers not dele- 
 gated to the United States by the constitution, nor pro- 
 hibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states re- 
 spectively, or to the people." The right to own slaves 
 being acknowledged and secured by the constitution, 
 can you proscribe what the constitution guarantees ? 
 Can you touch a right reserved to the states or the peo- 
 ple ? You cannot. 
 
 It has been said,(c) that in Virginia 25,559 free persons 
 elect a member of the House of Representatives, and 
 that in a northern state 35,000 free persons elect a mem- 
 ber. Let us state the fact. A member from Vermont 
 represents 35,000 persons only ; a member from Virginia 
 represents more than 42,000 persons. In forming a con- 
 stitution for a state, it may be proper that a given number 
 of free persons in one part of the state should have as 
 much political power as an equal number in any other 
 part of the same state : but, in forming a constitution for 
 a confederacy of states, each should exercise a share of 
 power, and bear a share of public burdens, proportioned 
 to their respective ability. The ability of a state may be 
 fairly estimated by its capacity for labor — the source of 
 wealth. If men only were enumerated, there might be 
 some reason for dropping a portion of the number of 
 the slaves ; yet even that is doubtful, as many of the 
 freemen are idle, and belong to the unproductive class, 
 whereas the men slaves are generally productive labor- 
 ers -. but why should five women or five children, who 
 are unproductive, and have no political rights, be count- 
 ed five, in proportioning the number of representatives, 
 while five negro men, productive laborers, are counted 
 only three ? A concession was indeed made in the con- 
 vention in proportioning the representatives among the 
 states ; but it seems to me that the southern states made 
 it, in agreeing to count only three-fifths of the slaves. 
 
 It has been said that the allowance to the slave holding- 
 states of representation for three-fifths of the slave popu- 
 lation, was a great concession to the slave holding states, 
 but that the concession was definite ; its full extent was 
 comprehended, and it was a settlement between the oft- 
 
 {c) Bv Mr. King, in his pamphlet, 
 1 *' 
 
ginal thirteen states. And none of these assertions seem 
 to be correct. There were but twelve states in the con- 
 vention; therefore no settlement wa3 made between 
 thirteen states. And the constitution says, that " new 
 states may be admitted by the Congress into this Union." 
 The states thus admitted are entitled to representation 
 for three-fifths of their slaves, by express words : " Re- 
 presentatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among 
 the several states which may be included in this Union, 
 according to their respective numbers," &c. So that, if 
 the new state is included in this Union, it shall have a 
 representation according to its federal numbers, saith the 
 constitution. Therefore, the concession was not definite, 
 nor its extent comprehended, as has been affirmed. 
 
 But why is the representation on this floor spoken of 
 as the representation of the free population ? Our con- 
 stituents are the qualified electoi s only; but we represent 
 the states, the whole population, and the whole wealth 
 of the community. The ratio of representation is the 
 main pillar of the constitution; and it does not become 
 those who are sworn to support it to be undermining its 
 foundations. 
 
 It has been said that the states in which slavery is pro- 
 hibited, ultimately, though with reluotance, acquiesced 
 in what is called the disproportionate number of repre- 
 sentatives and electors that was secured to the slave-hold- 
 ing states. But it appears by the journal of the conven- 
 tion, that, within twelve days after the convention com- 
 menced its deliberations, the proposition to fix the ratio 
 of representation, in the manner in which it was settled, 
 was made by Mr. Wilspn, of Pennsylvania, and immedi- 
 ately agreed to ; nine states voting for it, among which 
 were Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, and Penn- 
 sylvania. It was, indeed, afterwards debated ; and three 
 propositions were offered to the convention. The first 
 was to enumerate free persons only ; this was the pro- 
 position of Mr. Randolph, of Virginia, and was ultimately 
 voted for by New Jersey only. The second was to enu- 
 merate all persons ; this was the proposition of Mr. Pinck- 
 ney, of South Carolina, and was ultimately supported 
 only by South Carolina and Georgia. The third was Mr. 
 Wilson's proposition, to enumerate three-fifths of the 
 slaves ; which proposition was supported by the other 
 states, and became a part of the constitution. That mode 
 of enumeration had been previously agreed on by the 
 old Congress, in April, 1783, for ascertaining the pro- 
 portion of the public burdens that should be imposed on 
 each of the United States. 
 
 It has been said that Congress have power to regulate 
 
commerce among the several states, and therefore may 
 prohibit carrying slaves into Missouri. I answer, that a 
 power to regulate commerce is not a power to prohibit 
 commerce. The suppression of the slave trade does not 
 depend on the power to regulate commerce alone. It 
 is authorized by the clause which declares that Congress 
 shall not prohibit the importation of slaves prior to 1808. 
 The power of Congress is to regulate commerce among 
 the several states, and not to regulate the commerce of 
 a single state. No preference is to be given, by any re- 
 gu'ation of commerce, to the ports of one state over 
 those of another. And if you were about to exercise 
 one of your own constitutional powers, I presume you 
 would not call on Missouri to execute your power, by 
 inserting a clause in her constitution. 
 
 The honorable member from Ohio claims for Congress 
 power to "provide for the general welfare of the United 
 States," and justifies the imposition of the restriction as 
 a provision for the general welfare. If this power is 
 granted by the constitution, Congress possess absolute 
 power, which, in Rome, was conferred on the Dictator 
 by an authority to " take care that the republic received 
 no damage." 
 
 With a view to put an end to this claim on the part of 
 Congress, of power to pass whatever law they t please, 
 which has been set up formerly, and may be set up again, 
 it will be useful to examine how the first clause of the 
 eighth section of the first article of the Constitution was 
 understood by the Convention who formed it, and the 
 people who adopted it. On the 6th of August, the clause 
 in question stood in the draft of the Constitution thus : 
 " The Legislature of the United States shall have power 
 to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises." On 
 the 18th a proposition was made to assume the state 
 debts, which was committed to a committee. On the 22d 
 Mr. Rutledge reported, from that committee, this amend- 
 ment ; at the end of the first clause of the first section 
 of the 7th article, add, " for the payment of the debts 
 and necessary expenses of the United States : provided," 
 Sic. Onthe 25th, it was moved to add to the first clause 
 of the first section of the 7th article, " for the payment 
 of the said debts, and for defraying the expenses that 
 shall be incurred for the common defence and general 
 welfare ;" which then passed in the negative. On the 
 31st the undecided parts of the Constitution were re- 
 ferred to a committee of eleven, who, on the 4th of Sep- 
 tember, reported this addition and alteration ; the first 
 clause of the first section of the seventh article to read 
 as follows : " The Legislature shall have power to lay 
 
8 
 
 and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the 
 debts, and provide for the common defence and general 
 welfare of the United States." The clause thus reported 
 is pointed with comas only, throughout. On the 8th of 
 September, a committee of five were appointed " to re- 
 vise the style, and arrange the articles agreed to by the 
 House." No question was afterwards taken on this part 
 of the clause. And an entry made on the 14th Septem- 
 ber, after the revision was reported, proves the false- 
 hood of those copies which separate this clause into two 
 distinct clauses ; it says, " add at the end of the first 
 clause of the eighth section, first article, «but all duties, 
 imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the U- 
 nited States." It obviously appears, that the committee 
 of eleven used the words u to pay the debts and provide 
 for the common defence and general welfare of the U- 
 nited States," to express the same meaning as " for the 
 payment of said debts and for defraying the expenses that 
 shall be incurred for the common defence and general 
 welfare;" the words of the amendment moved on the 
 25th of August. It is a limitation of the power of taxa- 
 tion, which the Convention intended should not be carri- 
 ed further than was necessary to pay the debts and pro- 
 vide for the general welfare. It confers a power to raise 
 money as a means of executing the other powers of the 
 government. How the clause came to be divided into 
 two clauses, as it appears in some copies, which may be 
 deemed falsified copies, cannot perhaps be now ascer- 
 tained. 
 
 Such was the explanation of the meaning of this clause 
 given to the people when the Constitution was adopted ; 
 and no other meaning ought to be, or can be imposed 
 upon it. (d) 
 
 {(}) Extract from the observations of Gov. Randolph, a member 
 
 of the General Convention, delivered to the Convention of 
 
 Virginia. 
 
 " This foi-midable clause does not in the least increase the 
 powers of Congress. It is only inserted for the greater caution, 
 and to prevent the possibility of encroaching upon the powers 
 of Congress." And, after quoting the clause, he says, " The 
 plain and obvious meauing of this is, that no more duties, taxes, 
 imposts, and excises, shall be laid, than are sufficient to pay 
 the debts and provide for the common defence and general 
 welfare of the United States." 
 
 Extract from the observations of Mr. Marshall, ( now Chief 
 Justice of the U. S.J delivered on the same occasion. 
 
 After quoting the clause, he says, " the dehts of the Union 
 ought to be paid. Ought not the common defence to be pro- 
 vided for ? Is it net necessary to provide for the general wet- 
 
If you possessed power to legislate concerning slavery, 
 ihe adoption of the proposition on your table, which goes 
 to emancipate all children of slaves hereafter born in 
 Missouri, would be a direct violation of the Constitution, 
 which provides that "no persontshall be deprived of pro- 
 perty without due process of law ; nor shall private pro- 
 perty be taken for public use without just compensation." 
 If you cannot take property even for public use, without 
 just compensation, you certainly have not power to take 
 it away for the purpose of annihilation, without compen- 
 sation. And if you cannot take away that which is in ex- 
 istence, you cannot take away that which will come into 
 existence hereafter. If you cannot take away the land, you 
 cannot take the future crops ; and if you cannot take the 
 slaves, you cannot take their issue, who, by the laws of 
 slavery, will be also slaves. You cannot force the peo- 
 ple to give up their property. You cannot force a por- 
 tion of the people to emancipate their slaves. 
 
 By adopting this proposition, you will have proved 
 that the clauses of the Constitution deemed most sacred 
 by the people, are not sacred with you. The Constitu- 
 tion was the work of politicians. The amendments were 
 the work of the people. They are the parts of the Con- 
 stitution which protect the rights of the people. The 
 amendment which secures property you are about to 
 violate, by emancipating, without the consent of the 
 masters, the offspring of ten thousand slaves. 
 
 If your object is not to keep down the growth of the 
 western country ; if you are not in pursuit of power and 
 influence ; if the future freedom of the blacks is your 
 real object, and not a mere pretence, why do you not 
 begin here ? Within the ten miles square, you have un- 
 doubted power to exercise exclusive legislation. Pro- 
 duce a bill to emancipate the slaves of Columbia ; or, if 
 you prefer it, to emancipate those born hereafter. Can 
 
 fare ? The amounts to be raised are confined to these purposes 
 solely. They are not to raise money for any other purpose." 
 An exact transcript of die 1st clause of the 8th section of the 1st 
 article of the Constitution of the United States, "as it regards 
 the words, arrangement, punctuation, and capitals," made at 
 the request of Mr. Smyth, by J. B. Colvin. Esq. Clerk in the 
 Department of State, from the original Constitution signed by 
 the Convention : 
 
 Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect 
 Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and pro- 
 vide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the Unit- 
 ed States ; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform 
 throughout the United States ; 
 
 [The next clause begins as a paragraph." 
 
10 
 
 you take away the slaves hereafter born within the Dis- 
 trict, without making compensation ? I think you will 
 not attempt it. And yet you will impose on others an 
 obligation to do and suffer an act of injustice which you 
 dare not attempt to do yourselves. 
 
 No people ought to be bound by laws to which they 
 have not lreely consented. Will you say that, by adopt- 
 ing your proposition, they have consented ? Such is the 
 traveller's consent, when the robber demands his purse. 
 You propose a contract which no righteous judge would 
 respect ; because you take advantage of, and abuse your 
 power. Such would be the contract of an inexperienced 
 youth, whose unjust guardian, some hoary extortioner, 
 should compel him to convey away a part of his estate, 
 before he would give him possession of the remainder. 
 
 The people of Missouri will be rightfully bound by 
 our laws made for the whole Union ; but we have no 
 right to make local laws for the people of Missouri alone. 
 We have no right to pass partial laws, that shall operate 
 in some of the states, and not in others. 
 
 You cannot limit the new states in the exercise of 
 their retained powers. Whether slavery shall exist or 
 not in the new states, must depend on the free will of the 
 state legislatures, and of the people. If you can in this 
 way prescribe the course of legislation on one subject, 
 you can on any subject, or on every subject. 
 
 No state can be bound not to change its constitution. 
 The same right which Pennsylvania has of self govern- 
 ment, every new state must possess of sslf government. 
 They are bound to adopt a republican constitution : for 
 that is a law of the whole Union. 
 
 If you impose on Missouri the contemplated restriction, 
 and Missouri forms her constitution accordingly, it will 
 not be your act, but the act of Missouri that will become 
 a law. Then suppose Missouri changes her constitu- 
 tion ; as she made the law, she can repeal it. Your act 
 can have no force, because not passed in pursuance of 
 the constitution of the United States. The acts of 
 Congress, passed in pursuance of the constitution, are 
 laws ; but the stipulations or declarations of Congress, 
 not authorised by the constitution, are not laws ; and 
 they can have no sanction : for it is only the acts pass- 
 ed in pursuance of the constitution that are the su- 
 preme law of the land. If your act is a law, it needs 
 not the aid or consent of Missouri ; and if Missouri is to 
 pass the law, Missouri may repeal it. But this, say our 
 opponents, would be pei-fidious on the part of Missouri ; 
 and they will not presume that Missouri would violate 
 her plighted faith. They detest all perfidy except that 
 
11 
 
 which they themselves recommend. This would not be 
 perfidy on the part of Missouri. The people of Missouri 
 would only have eluded the effects of the perfidy of those 
 who would have violated a solemn treaty. 
 
 It has seemed to some that as Ohio was required to 
 form a constitution agreeing- with the ordinance of Con- 
 gress of 1787, which excluded slavery from the territory 
 north-west of the Ohio river, therefore Missouri may be 
 likewise required to exclude slavery by her constitution. 
 Whatever be the effect of the ordinance of 1787, it has 
 no application to Missouri. But I contend that Ohio is 
 not bound by the ordinance ; that she is at liberty to de- 
 cide as she pleases the question, whether she will or will 
 not exclude slavery. 
 
 Let us examine this claim set up on the part of the 
 old Congress of a power to bind the people of the 
 country north-west of Ohio, and their descendants fore- 
 ver, by a law not repealable by any legislature whatever, 
 present, or to come ; a lav which neither a convention 
 of the people of Ohio, nor this Congress, nor any future 
 convention or Congress, can repeal ; a law immutable 
 and eternal. If there is any principle of republican go- 
 vernment about which there will be no disagreement in 
 this House, I presume it is this ; that all legitimate pow- 
 er is derived from the people, that there is no lawful 
 authority to bind any people, but what is derived from 
 them. This being, as 1 suppose, admitted, I will ask, had 
 the Congress of 1787-a power derived from the people, 
 to bind any portion of the people and their descendants 
 forever ? 
 
 The state constitutions, which contain the only grant of 
 power which had then been given by the people,did not 
 mention such a body as Congress. The state legisla- 
 tures, without any express authority for that purpose 
 from the people, sent deputies to Philadelphia. These 
 were ministers from distinct sovereign powers, foreign to 
 each other. They entered into a league by a treaty cal- 
 led " articles of confederation," which the several states 
 ratified. The articles of confederation had the force of 
 a ratified treaty. The powers thereby conferred on 
 Congress were special enumerated powers ; and all not 
 granted, were expressly retained to the states. The on- 
 ly power of a legislative character, granted, was power 
 to make rules respecting captures, and rules for the go. 
 vernment of the land and naval forces of the United 
 States. It may be justly questioned whether the state 
 legislatures could in this form have granted legislative 
 powers over the people. A power to legislate over the 
 people must be delegated by them. It was deemed ne* 
 
12 
 
 eessary t® apply to the people when this constitu 
 tion was formed. And for a further confirmation of the 
 doctrine which I maintain, I refer every gentleman to the 
 bill of rights of his own state constitution. It is thus laid 
 down by the convention of New York : " No authority 
 shall, on any pretence whatever, be exercised over the 
 people, or members of this state, but such as shall be de- 
 rived from, and granted by, them." 
 
 Virginia and other states ceded the country north west 
 of the Ohio river to the United States, as well the juris- 
 diction as the soil. What passed by the deed ? I answer 
 a right to the soil only ; the jurisdiction could not pass to 
 Congress. That body was incapable of receiving a grant 
 of authority to legislate for the people north west of 
 Ohio : because they were the representatives of the states, 
 and not of the people. The jurisdiction was in the peo- 
 ple ; or would vest in them, as soon as there should be 
 people in the ceded territory. Whatever jurisdiction the 
 legislature of Virginia possessed, they possessed as repre ; 
 senting the people of Virginia. The jurisdiction was de- 
 rived from the people ; it went with the people ; and 
 not with the right of soil. 
 
 If any are disposed to compare the cession of the north 
 western territory to that of the ten miles square, I will 
 call their attention to this dissimilarity. The people of 
 Maryland and Virginia, including those within the ten 
 miles square, ratified the present constitution, which 
 vests in Congress power to exercise exclusive legislation 
 over this district. The inhabitants of the ten miles 
 square were also represented in the legislative assemblies 
 which made the cession : but the people did not ratify 
 the articles of confederation ; nor did those articles vest 
 in the old Congress power to legislate over "any portion 
 of the civil part of the community ; neither were the peo- 
 ple of the north western territory represented in the 
 legislative assemblies whieh made the cession thereof. 
 
 At the commencement of every new settlement, whe- 
 ther at Plymouth, or at Jamestown, at Botany Bay, or at 
 Chilicothe, a government founded either in force or ne- 
 cessity may be expected to prevail for a time. Such was 
 the government exercised by the old Congress north- 
 west of theOhio. But, such a government cannot bind 
 a people forever. When they become independent, and 
 come to frame a form of government for themselves, on 
 republican principles, to maintain, that not only they, but 
 also their posterity, are bound by the acts of the British 
 Parliament, or the ordinances of the old Congress, is, I 
 conceive, preposterous. 
 
 All legitimate power proceeds from the people. And 
 
13 
 
 although an illegitimate power may be imposed by force, 
 and submitted to from necessity, it cannot bind the peo- 
 ple longer than the force and necessity are present. Such 
 was the power which the British parliament exercised 
 before the revolution over these then colonies ; and 
 such was the power asserted by the Congress of 1787 
 over the north western territory. But, as the Declara- 
 tion of the British Parliament, that they had power to 
 bind the colonies in all cases whatsoever, does not bind 
 the people of these states : so the ordinance of 1/87 
 does not bind the people of Ohio any longer than they 
 please to submit to it. It was an act of illegitimate 
 power ; and it cannot bind those who are the source of 
 all legitimate power. 
 
 It is even doubtful, whether the ordinance was duly 
 passed. By the articles of confederation, the concurrence 
 of nine of the states was necessary to important trans- 
 actions. The power exercised was noi given ; and of the 
 powers which were given, those of making appropria- 
 tions and treaties, most resemble the power exercised. It 
 was necessary that nine states should concur in exercising 
 either of those powers. Only eight states were pre- 
 sent and concurring in passing this ordinance. 
 
 It has been said, that the restriction on the introduc- 
 tion of slavery, north west of the Ohio river, was proposed 
 by Virginia, and that the southern states unanimously 
 agreed to it. This is said to fix the character of inconsis- 
 tency on Virginia. The fact is, that Virginia and the 
 southern states voted for the whole ordinance, when com- 
 pleted; but it is also true, that those states had repeatedly 
 voted against the clause excluding'slavery. In April, 1784, 
 a vote was taken on this clause, when Maryland, Vir- 
 ginia, and South Carolina, voted against it ; North Caro- 
 lina divided, and Georgia absent. And although seven 
 states voted for the clause, it was rejected ; a proof that 
 Congress then conceived that the concurrence of nine 
 states was necessary to every clause of this ordinance ; 
 which they called a « compact." In March, 1785, Mr. 
 King proposed a similar clause ; Virginia, North Ca- 
 rolina, Sout^i Carolina, and Georgia, voted against it ; 
 eight states voted lor the commitment of it, and it was 
 committed. The member from Virginia, (Mr. Grayson) 
 to whom this measure is ascribed, was not a member of 
 Congress in 1784. 
 
 My honorable friend from Massachusetts, (Mr. Holmes) 
 was mistaken, when he supposed that the Congress of 
 1787 was bound by the ordinance of 1784, which did not 
 exclude slavery from the north western territory. They 
 would have been bound, had any part of the land in Ohio 
 
14 
 
 been sold, not to change the ordinance of 1784, without 
 the consent of Ohio. Bat no part of the land was sold, 
 previous to the passage of the ordinance on the 13th Ju- 
 17,1787. I have examined that matter carefully; and am 
 unwilling that the committee should be under any erro- 
 neous impressions that I can remove. 
 
 I affirm that the people of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, 
 are not eternally bound by the ordinance of 1787. They 
 "were no party to the pretended compact ; and, if they 
 had been a party, they had no power to bind the pre- 
 sent generation — they had no power to bind their pos- 
 terity : the people of Ohio may change their constitution 
 when they please. 
 
 It has been said that the constitution vests in Congress 
 a power to make all needful regulations respecting the 
 territory of the United States ; and this power, it is sup- 
 posed, authorizes us to exclude slaves from the territo- 
 ries of the United States, and also to demand from any 
 of those territories about to become states, a stipulation 
 for the exclusion of slaves. The clause of the constitu- 
 tion referred to, reads thus : " The Congress shall have 
 power to dispose of, and make all needful rules and re- 
 gulations respecting the territory or other property be- 
 longing to the United States." It has been contended 
 that this gives a power of legislation over persons and 
 private property within the territories of the U. States. 
 The clause obviously relates to the territory belonging to 
 the United States, as property only. The power given 
 is to dispose of, and make all needful regulations respect- 
 ing, the territorial property, or other property of the U. 
 States ; and Congress have power to pass all laws neces- 
 sary and proper to the exercise of that power. This 
 clause speaks of the territory as property, as a subject of 
 sale. It speaks not of the jurisdiction. (e.) That the Con- 
 vention considered as being provided for by the ordi- 
 nance of Congress. This clause contains no grant of pow- 
 er to legislate over persons and private property within 
 a territory. A power to dispose of, and make all need- 
 ful regulations respecting the property of the U. States, 
 is very different from a power to legislate over the per- 
 sons and the property of the people. When it was the 
 intention of the Convention that the constitution should 
 convey to Congress power to legislate over persons and 
 
 (e.) This clause, as first proposed in Convention, read 
 thus : "To dispose of the unappropriated lands of the 
 United States ; to institute temporary governments for 
 new states arising therein." The latter power was not, 
 granted. See Journal Convention, page 260. 
 
15 
 
 private property, they expressed themselves in terms not 
 doubtfuU Thus, they said, " Congress shall have power 
 to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever," 
 within the ten miles square. But no such power to le- 
 gislate over the territories is granted. The power is, to 
 dispose of, and make all needful regulations respecting 
 the property of the United States. When that is sold and 
 conveyed, it ceases to be an object of the power to make 
 regulations respecting the property of the United States ; 
 and if the construction contended for by our opponents, 
 be correct, and Congress possess power to legislate for a 
 territory, that would not authorise them to make regula- 
 tions which should continue in force when the territory 
 became a state, and the United States ceased to own pro- 
 perty therein. 
 
 The states of Ohio and Indiana have excluded slavery. 
 They did it freely, and of their own choice. But will 
 their representatives admit that those states are less free 
 to decide on this question than other states ? Will they 
 declare that their states do not possess equal rights with 
 Pennsylvania ? Will they acknowledge that their states 
 do not possess the same reserved rights that the other 
 states of the Union possess ? Will they agree that their 
 states are states of inferior grade, bound by authority of 
 Congress to exclude slavery ? And will they, therefore, 
 concur in imposing the same restrictions on their breth- 
 ren of Missouri ? I trust that they will not ; that they 
 will maintain the political equality of their own states 
 with other states in the Union ; and that they will leave 
 it to the people of Missouri to decide the question for 
 themselves, as the people of Ohio and Indiana have deci- 
 ded it for themselves. If these states deem themselves 
 bound in chains, I hope they will not therefore desire to 
 impose them on Missouri ; and if they deem themselves 
 free, they will generously impart the same freedom to 
 others. 
 
 Sir, if this proposition is adopted, it will be regarded 
 hereafter as an exercise of the power to guarantee a re- 
 publican form of government to every state in the Union. 
 You are about to admit a state, and you require her to 
 insert in her constitution a clause against slavery. Will 
 it not seem that you have done this by your authority to 
 guarantee a republican form of government ? I think it 
 will ; for you have no other power that seems to warrant 
 prescribing in part the form of the state constitution. If, 
 in the exercise of this power, you may require of a new 
 state to insert in her constitution a clause against slavery, 
 you may, under the same authority, require an old state 
 to add such a clause to her constitution. Thus you may 
 
16 
 
 require of the old states to exclude slavery, or provide 
 for its abolition. The slave-holding states must make 
 common cause with Missouri ; for the recognition of 
 such a power in this government would be fatal to 
 them. 
 
 This nation is bound by the treaty with France for 
 the purchase of Louisiana, to incorporate the inhabitants 
 of the ceded territory into the Union qf the United 
 States, according to the principles of the federal constitu- 
 tion ; to admit them to the enjoyment of all the rights, 
 advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United 
 States. Among the fundamental principles of the con- 
 stitution of the United States, are these: In fixing the 
 ratio of representation, five slaves are to be counted 
 equal to three free persons. Every state in the Union 
 shall have a republican form of government. The pow- 
 ers not delegated to the United States by the constitu- 
 tion, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to 
 the states respectively, or to the people. 
 
 But the honorable member from New-York, (Mr. Tay- 
 lor) maintained that it is a principle of the constitution of 
 the United States, that all men are free aad equal ; and 
 he asserted that " The American nation never sanction- 
 ed the right of slavery !"* The gentleman doubtless 
 means to be correct in what he asserts to the cemmittee: 
 But if he had asserted that " The American nation never 
 sanctioned a right in its citizens to catch fish on the 
 Grand Bank," the assertion would not have been more 
 incorrect than that which he has made. As to that clause 
 of the Declaration of Independence in which Congress 
 stated their opinion that men were created equal, and 
 that liberty was an unalienable right ; it has the same 
 force and effect, as a declaration of the like opinion by 
 any other equal number of persons of the same ability 
 and intelligence, having no political power. Congress 
 was then composed of ministers from the states. Even 
 the articles of confederation did not then exist ; and 
 they certainly did not confer on Congress a power to 
 emancipate slaves, when they did come into existence. 
 Suppose that the Congress of 1776 had declared their 
 religious creed ; would that have established a religion 
 for the United States ? I presume not. It would have 
 been said that they had nothing- to do with that subject. 
 They were charged with the exterior relations of the 
 colonies, and had no power to emancipate a single slave. 
 They asserted that man cannot alienate his liberty, 
 
 *This was Mr. Taylor's expression, though not thus re- 
 ported. 
 
U 
 
 nor by compact deprive his posterity of liberty. Slaves 
 are not held as having alienated their liberty by compact. 
 They are held under the law and usage of nations, from 
 the remotest times of which we have any historical know- 
 ledge, and by the municipal laws of the states, over 
 which the Congress of 1776 had not, and this Congress 
 have not, any control. We agree with the Congress of 
 1776, that men, on entering into society, cannot alienate 
 their right to liberty and property, and that they cannot, 
 by compact, bind their posterity. And, therefore, we con- 
 tend that the people of Missouri cannot alienate their 
 rights, or bind their posterity by a compact with Congress. 
 
 We are to understand this declaration of the opinion 
 of Congress as they intended it should be understood. — 
 They certainly did not mean to say that such are the na- 
 tural rights of man that they cannot be abridged by civil 
 laws. They meant that an oppressed people may, if 
 they are able, resist, and assert their freedom. They 
 asserted the independence of the states against parlia- 
 mentary usurpation : and that independence we main- 
 tain, except so far as it has been freely surrendered by 
 the constitution. 
 
 But the gentleman said, that " the American nation 
 never sanctioned the right of slavery " Sir, the old Con- 
 gress expressly sanctioned the right of slavery, in Sep- 
 tember, 1782, when they passed this resolution : " Re- 
 solved, Tftat the Secretary of Foreign Affairs be, and he 
 is hereby, directed to obtain, as.speedily as possible, au* 
 thentic returns of the slaves and other property which, 
 have been carried off or destroyed, in the course of the 
 war, by the enemy, and to transmit the same to the Mi- 
 nisters Plenipotentiary for negociating peace."(^j They 
 sanctioned the right of slavery when they commissioned 
 agents " to obtain the delivery of all negroes, and other 
 property of the inhabitants of the United States in the 
 possession of the British forces, or any subjects of, ©r 
 adherents to, his Britannic Majesty." (~g_) They sanc- 
 tioned the right of slavery when they ratified the provi- 
 sional and definitive treaties of peace with Great Britain, 
 containing this clause ; " His Britannic Majesty shall, 
 with all convenient speed, and without causing any des- 
 truction, or carrying away any negroes, or other proper- 
 ty of the American inhabitants, withdraw all his ar- 
 mies.*? (hj They recognized the right of slavery in A- 
 pril, 1783, by providing for an enumeration of the free 
 persons in the states, and three-fifths of the slaves, fij 
 
 CO 1 vol. state papers, page 533. fgj Same, paa;e 234. 
 ChJ t vol. laws, 198. ft J 1 vol. laws, 31. 
 
18 
 
 The whole nation sanctioned the right of slavery, by a- 
 dopting the constitution, which provides for an enume- 
 ration of slaves, a representation founded thereon, and 
 for the restoration of fugitive slaves to their masters, ac- 
 knowledging 1 the obligation of state laws, which hold 
 men to labor or service. The Congress, acting under 
 the constitution, have sanctioned the right of slavery, 
 by providing for an enumeration of slaves for the pur- 
 pose ot taxing them,, by taxing them and making the 
 tax a lien on them as property, (kj If the gentleman 
 would tiave further proof, I refer him to the several acts 
 for taking the census, in which slaves are included. To 
 the acts prohibiting the slave trade, which allow the trans- 
 portation of slaves from state to state for sale ; and permit 
 the sale, under the state laws, of the Africans captur- 
 ed. (~IJ And also to the act for dividing Louisiana into 
 two territories, which authorizes the removal of Ameri- 
 can slaves into that country. f m J 
 
 Thus, as well the old Congress, as the Congress under 
 the constitution, have, in the most explicit manner, re- 
 cognized slaves, by that name, as property. It therefore 
 appears that if the gentleman (Mr. Taylor) had been 
 disposed to make an unfounded assertion to mislead the 
 committee, of which he is incapable, he could not have 
 made one more susceptible of complete refutation, than 
 is that which he hazarded, when he said that "the Ame- 
 rican nation never santioned the right to slavery." 
 
 By treaty, we are bound to admit Missouri into the U- 
 nion ; to allow her a representation for her slaves ; to 
 guarantee to her a republican form of government, (that 
 is, a government by and for the people themselves, not 
 a government imposed on them, nor a patrimonial gov- 
 ernment;) and to leave her all power not delegated by 
 the constitution to the United States, nor prohibited 
 by it to the states. Treaties are in part the su- 
 preme law of the land, and paramount to the con- 
 stitution of any state : yet you propose to violate the 
 treaty with France by the means of a state constitution, 
 which is of inferior obligation to a treaty. 
 
 It has been urged, not indeed at this session, as a 
 reason for violating the treaty with France, that the pre- 
 sent government of that nation will not insist on the strict 
 performance of its stipulations. Although the right 
 of the people of Missouri rests on a treaty, the 
 question arises between them and their own government; 
 and it would be considered criminal in them to apply for 
 
 C kj 3 vol. laws, 84. 100, 1Q2. flj 4 vol. laws, 06, 9^ 
 
 fm J 3 vol. laws, 607. 
 
19 
 
 protection to any other government. But the former 
 sovereign of the country has made a stipulation on be- 
 half of the people, and to that stipulation we have agreed 
 in the most solemn manner. If we do not perform our 
 engagements, we shall be deemed a perfidious, faithless 
 nation ; and yet it has been proposed to violate the trea- 
 ty, because the powerful monarch with whom we made 
 it reigns no more. 
 
 Will you be unjust, false, and perfidious, because you 
 are powerful ? Would it be honorable to violate a trea- 
 ty because those who claim the benefits of its provisions 
 are our own citizens ? Should the treaty with Spain be 
 ratified, will you refuse to pay your own citizens for 
 Spanish spoliations, because Spain, who stipulated on 
 their behalf, is not likely to declare war against you if 
 you do not ? By your constitution, a treaty is the su- 
 preme law of the land, and paramount to the constitution 
 which you propose to force Missouri to adopt. You 
 may, indeed, repeal the treaty by an act of Congress : 
 but the effect of a measure of that kind should be well 
 considered. And you must repeal the treaty directly or 
 by implication before the proposed measure can have 
 the desired effect : For the treaty, until it is repealed, 
 is paramount to the imposed constitution ; and the judg- 
 es would sustain it. 
 
 Beware! You have no right to Missouri but what the 
 treaty gives you. The treaty gives you Missouri on con- 
 dition that you secure the property of the inhabitants, 
 and incorporate them into the Union of the United States 
 with all the rights of citizens, according to the principles 
 of the Federal Constitution, which reserves to them all 
 powers not delegated by that Constitution. If I receive 
 a deed on condition, I am bound to perform the condi- 
 tion. Every engagement in a treaty is a condition, the 
 breach of which releases the other party from his en- 
 gagements.^!) Perhaps they are mistaken who suppose 
 that the present Government of France is deficient in 
 spiric and honor, and will not ihsist on the observance of 
 existing treaties made with France. Would not England 
 like to see France and the United States brought into 
 collision ? Would not all Europe be pleased to see the 
 power of France interposed between the United States 
 and Mexico ? France wants colonies and commerce ; 
 and half the people of Louisiana are Frenchmen. 
 
 I have heard it said, in relation to this question, that 
 if a territory is conquered, the conqueror may govern it 
 as he pleases. But you did not conquer Louisiana. You 
 
 in) Grotiuss 
 
20 
 
 received a deed of trust of this territory ; and if you do 
 not perform the trust, you have no title. It was said at 
 the last session, " we purchased the territory, and had a 
 right to sell it ; therefore we may annex such conditions 
 to its admission into the Union as we please." It is true 
 that you paid money for the territory; but you took a 
 conditional deed, and are bound by the conditions in the 
 deed. You have no right to sell it to a foreign power : 
 for you have bound yourselves to incorporate the inhabi- 
 tants in the Union of the United States, according to the 
 principles of the Federal Constitution. This promise 
 cannot be fulfilled but by admitting them as states : for 
 territories are not " incorporated in the Union of the 
 states." The Constitution provides that "the citizens 
 of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immu- 
 nities of citizens in the several states;" this was intend- 
 ed for the benefit of those citizens who should remove 
 from one state to another. The treaty provides that the 
 inhabitants of Louisiana shall be admitted "to the enjoy- 
 ment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of ci- 
 tizens of the United States." This provision is not for 
 the benefit of the traveller from Louisiana. It is intend- 
 ed for the inhabitants of Louisiana in their states ; that 
 they shall have the s .me rights in their states, that other 
 citizens of the United States have in their states ; conse- 
 quently, that they shall possess the right of self-govern- 
 ment. 
 
 It has been said, that although by treaty we are bound 
 to maintain the inhabitants of Louisiana in their property 
 until they are incorporated in the Union of the United 
 States, the stipulation is but temporary, and not after- 
 wards obligatory. It seems, therefore, to be inferred, that 
 we may take away their property after they have been 
 admit.edinto the Union as a state, although previously 
 it is secure. The name of no man can obtain respect for 
 such an argument. When they shall be incorporated in- 
 to the Union of the states, their property will be sacred. 
 Can these inhabitants be incorporated in the Union of 
 the United States, and their enjoyment of their religion, 
 liberty, and property, be afterwards rendered insecure by 
 Congress? The great advocate for depriving them of 
 their property, says expressly, "Congress have no power 
 to prevent the free enjoyment of the Catholic reli- 
 gion." (o) Then it is equally certain that Congress have 
 no power to prevent the free enjoyment of property : 
 for religion and property are alike secured to them by 
 the same clause of the treaty, and by those provisions of 
 
 (o) Mr. King's pamphlet. 
 
21 
 
 the Constitution which declare that Congress shall make 
 no law respecting- an establishment of religion; that pro- 
 perty shall'not be taken for public use without just com- 
 pensation ; and that which declares that all power not 
 delegated is reserved to the states and the people. — 
 What forms the Union of the United States ? The Con- 
 stitution. Then to be incorporated in the Union of the 
 United States is to become a party to the Constitution- 
 entitled to all the rights and privileges which it confers, 
 and liable to all the duties which it imposes. 
 
 It has been said, that Congress alone are to judge of 
 the expediency of admitting a state. If that was conced- 
 ed, it would not follow that they should have power to 
 razee a state, making a new class, by depriving the ad- 
 mitted state of equai rights. It might justify the refusal 
 of Congress to admit the new state : but Congress have 
 sanctioned the treaty, executed it in part, by admitting 
 one state, and selling the ceded lands. The expediency 
 of the incorporation should have been considered before 
 Congress sanctioned the treaty. It is now too late. The 
 faith of the nation is pledged irrevocably ; and so is the 
 faith of Congress. 
 
 You have not only pledged the public faith to France 
 and the people of Louisiana, but you have made this sti- 
 pulation with the emigrants to that country, (those emi- 
 grants being mostly slave-holders; fur you have invited 
 the slave holders to go to Missouri, by freely admitting 
 their slaves, which you excluded from the territories of 
 Indiana and Illinois.) You have said in your laws to 
 those emigrants from the southern states, " no man shall 
 be deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but by the 
 judgment of his peers, and the law of the land. If the 
 public exigencies make it necessary, for the common pre- 
 servation, to take the property of any person, or to de- 
 mand his particular services, full compensation shall be 
 made for the same." 
 
 It is said, you have made conditions with Louisiana, and 
 therefore it is contended that you may make conditions 
 with Missouri. If you made conditions with Louisiana 
 that you had no right to demand, that will not prove that 
 you have a right to make any condition you please with 
 Missouri. Let us examine those conditions. The first 
 was for a republican form of government. A good con- 
 dition, because agreeable to the Constitution. The se- 
 cond, for religious liberty. This condition is supposed to 
 be void, and that the people of Louisiana may require 
 their officers to acknowledge a future state of rewards 
 and punishments, as in Pennsylvania ; or to be Christ- 
 ians, as in Maryland, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts; 
 
or to be Protestants, as in New York, New Jersey, and 
 North Carolina. A third, that the judicial proceeding's 
 shall be in the language of the judicial and legislative 
 proceedings of the United States. This they would not 
 submit to ; but they agreed to use the language in which 
 the Constitution is written. 1 suppose the condition is 
 void ; and that they may keep their records in any other 
 language when they please. A fourth condition respects 
 the public lands. This is useless. We have power to 
 enact needful regulations on that subject; and do not 
 depend on the Constitution of Louisiana for any of our 
 powers. A fifth condition is for the navigation of the 
 river Mississippi, toll free. This they rejected ; but you 
 declared it a condition of their admiss on. The right de- 
 pends not on your declaration ; it depends on the law of 
 nations, on former treaties, and on the power of Congress 
 to regulate commerce. Suppose that they should im- 
 pose toll on the navigation of the river : will you expel 
 them from the Union ? I presume that you will not. 
 
 I trust that the only enquiry that this Government will 
 make in relation to the treaty with France, is, what have 
 we engaged to perform ? It will never condescend to 
 enquire, what is the penalty if we violate our faith, and 
 who will enforce it? Shall we, at the moment when our 
 Envoy at the Court of Spain proclaims aloud, that this 
 Government will punish perfidy, violate our faith pledg- 
 ed to France, because, as the great Napoleon no longer 
 reigns, we expect the violation might pass unpunished ? 
 I hope we are not thus perfidiously to imitate Punic faith, 
 by " paltering" with our engagements. When the fu- 
 ture historian shall speak of your conduct and that of 
 Ferdinand, he will say, " Ferdinand, in refusing to ratify 
 the treaty negociated with the United States, preferred 
 the chance of war, and the risk of all his foreign pos- 
 sessions, to a violation of his faith pledged to three of 
 his own subjects : but the United States violated a treaty 
 ratified by the President and Senate, and confirmed by 
 Congress, thereby depriving their own citizens of their 
 property to an immense amount, consoling themselves 
 with the expectation that France would allow their per- 
 fidy to pass unpunished." Such will be his testimony; and 
 the judgment of posterity will condemn you. 
 
 I will next examine the justice of the proposed mea- 
 sure. It is a principle of the Constitution that no advan- 
 tage shall be given to some of the states over others. It 
 was with a view to prevent partiality, that it was provided 
 by the Constitution that import duties should be uniform, 
 and that no export duties should be laid ; that direct tax- 
 es should be laid according to the census ; and that r.r 
 
2S 
 
 preference should be given to the ports of any state. li 
 is a sacred duty of Congress to do equal and impartial 
 justice to every part of the Union. 
 
 Taxes may be laid to promote the general welfare of 
 the United States. If fifteen millions of dollars of the 
 money raised by taxes paid by the whole people, are ap- 
 propriated to purchase a territory, is it just to exclude 
 therefrom the inhabitants of a part of the states ? The 
 inhabitants of the slave-holding states, being slave-holders, 
 you exclude them if you exclude their slaves, as effectual- 
 ly as you would exclude married men by a law that chil- 
 dren and married women should not come into the terri- 
 tory. If you had power to enact such a law, the inequal- 
 ity^ its operation should deter you from passing an act, 
 so partial and unjust. 
 
 Shall the slave-holders be declared incapable of hold- 
 ing any share of the territory purchased with the money 
 of the whole people ? Have they not contributed their 
 full proportion of the money paid for the territory ? By 
 such a measure you will deprive the southern people of an 
 equal privilege — that of taking with them their families. 
 Will you compel the citizen of Kentucky, the wants of 
 whose children require more lands, when he is about to 
 remove to Missouri, to sell the nurse who has fed his 
 ohildren from her breast, the faithful man who has long 
 attended on his person, the maids of b is w ife & daughters, 
 and the little children born in his family, before he can 
 remove to the country of his choice ? Yes ; this you pre- 
 pose to do ; yet talk of your humanity ! We are told with 
 unfeeling apathy, by the great advocate of the measure 
 under consideration, that "the slaves owned by the inhabi- 
 tants might be sent for sale into states were slavery exists." 
 
 So far as the proposed measure may affect Virginia, it 
 will be an unworthy return for the most generous liberal- 
 ity. A large portion of the country north of Ohio was 
 within her chartered limits. Alone and unaided she 
 conquered it from the common enemy. She ceded it to 
 the United States for the common benefit, without any 
 equivalent. She submitted to a regulation as unjust as it 
 was unauthorised, by which almost the whole of her po- 
 pulation were excluded from that fine country, once 
 their own. And now, after she has paid her full propor- 
 tion of the price of another country, it is proposed to ev 
 elude he? people from that also. 
 
 The plan of our opponents seems to be, to confine the 
 slave population to the southern states ; to the countries 
 where sugar, cotton, and tobacco, are cultivated ; and this 
 under pretence of humanity to the blacks. But do you 
 not perceive, sir, that by confining the slaves to a part of 
 
9A 
 
 the country where the crops are raised for exportation, 
 and bread and meat are purchased, that you doom them 
 to scarcity and hunger ? Is it not obvious that the way 
 to render the situation of those people more comfortable 
 is to allow them to be taken to those parts of the coun- 
 try where bread and meat are produced in profusion, 
 with'little labor, and where, consequently, there is not the 
 same motive to force the slaves to incessant toil, that 
 there is in the countries where cotton, sugar, and tobacco 
 are raised for exportation. 
 
 It is proposed to hem in the blacks in a sterile country, 
 where they are hard worked andill fed, that they may be 
 rendered unproduc ive, and their race prevented from 
 increasing". Yet in recommending- the utility of this mea- 
 sure in diminishing the number of the negroes, occasion 
 is taken to declaim against slavery, and to irritate the 
 slaves against their masters ; those very masters who are 
 desirous to improve the condition of their slaves, by re- 
 moving them to the fertile and extensive plains of the 
 west. 
 
 The proposed measure, recommended under the mask 
 of humanity, would be extreme cruelty to the blacks. 
 You would not only doom them to sea 1 city and hard la- 
 bor; but, by confining them to a particular district, where 
 their numbers will be formidable, you will cause their 
 chains to be rendered more weighty. The southern 
 people seeing that they must rely on themselves for safe- 
 ty will, if they have common prudence, take precautions 
 for their security. Already the slaves experience the ef- 
 fects of your intermeddling with their situation. Since the 
 incendiary speeches of the last session, Georgia has put a 
 stop to manumission, (q) andNortn Carolina has essayed 
 to put a stop to instruction. 
 
 If you are truly desirous that, the slaves shall be treated 
 with humanity, let them be as much as possible dispersed. 
 The smaller their number in any district, the better will 
 be their situation. It is well known that those farmers 
 who have only two or three slaves, feed, clothe, and 
 govern them as they do their children ; while those of 
 the great proprietors are not so well fed or clothed, more 
 restrained, and more constantly engaged in labor. If, in- 
 stead of favoring the dispersion of the slaves, a measure 
 truly dictated by humanity, you confine them to the 
 states wherein they now are, you will be as cruel as him, 
 who, when besieging an enemy's city, fired upon the 
 
 (q)This law, noticed in the newspapers of 1819, is said to 
 have passed before the debate alluded to. It prohibits emanci- 
 pation, except by the Legislature on the consent of the master. 
 
25 
 
 women and children who attempted to come out, that 
 thereby he might occasion a famine in the city as soon as 
 possible. 
 
 I will next consider the effect which the proposed 
 measure may have upon the safety of the community. 
 There were in the United States, at the taking of the 
 last census, of free whites 5,765,000, of slaves 1,165,000, 
 or about one slave to five free whites. There were of 
 free blacks 181,000, making the whole number of the 
 blacks about 1,346,000, there being more than four whites 
 to one black. Now it is apparent, that were these peo- 
 ple equally dispersed in every district, county, and town, 
 of every state, there would be no danger from any in- 
 surrectional movement by them in any part of the Unit- 
 ed States. Equal dispersion would produce not only an 
 increase of comfort to the slaves, but also perfect securi- 
 ty to the whites. 
 
 Let us suppose that, instead of being dispersed through 
 ten of the s*ates, as they now are, that the slaves were 
 all collected in Virginia ; that state would then have 
 whites 551,000, blacks 1,346,000, or about five blacks to 
 two whites. What would be the consequence ? Let 
 Saint Domingo answer. But Virginia had actually 
 392,000 slaves, or about eight slaves to eleven white per- 
 sons. She is yet safe, if her legislators have foresight, 
 decision, and firmness. And I hope it will never be said 
 of Virginia, " Died Abner as a fool dieth : thy hands 
 were not bound, nor thy feet put into fetters." 
 
 As equal dispersion of the slaves would be perfect se- 
 curity, and concentration of them in a single state would 
 be probable destruction, what may be said of the policy 
 of the amendment on your table, which proposes to re- 
 turn upon the old states, or throw into Mississippi and 
 Louisiana, where they are already too numerous, ten 
 thousand slaves from Missouri. It is evident that the 
 more you concentrate them, the greater the danger ; the 
 more you disperse them, the greater the safety. Where 
 the proportion of the slaves to the free persons is too 
 great, it ought, by all just means, to be lessened. 
 
 Dispersion is the true policy to pursue towards a dis- 
 tinct people, whose numbers in any part of an empire 
 endanger its peace. Thus Salmanazer dispersed the Is- 
 raelites throughout his empire, and Vespasian, Adrian, 
 and Constantine, dispersed the Jews. It was good poli- 
 cy in Valens to disperse the children of the Goths in 
 Asia. So, in our own times, the British, finding that the 
 Maroons were dangerous in Jamaica, transported them to 
 Nova Scotia. Suppose that 50,000 prisoners had been 
 taken in the late war, would you have deemed it safe to 
 3 
 
26 
 
 have cantoned the whole of them in Vermont? Or would 
 you not have dispersed them through several of the 
 states ? Doubtless you would have dispersed them. And 
 for the same reason you should disperse the slaves. 
 
 In legislating with a view to the good of the whole 
 community, you should favor the dispersion of this peo- 
 ple as much as possible ; and if you take no step for that 
 purpose, at least place no obstacle in the way of those 
 who are willing to receive them from us. As the pro- 
 portion of the slaves to the whites is increased above a 
 certain ratio, so is the state weakened. Tennessee or 
 Missouri are not weakened, by their slave population, in 
 their ability to repel a savage foe, or any foe that 
 can appear in the West ; but the Southern states are 
 weakened in their ability to repel an invading enemy, 
 who should pursue the policy of Clinton, Howe, and 
 Dunmore. If you encourage the Southern whites, who 
 are not slave-holders, to emigrate, but prevent the emi- 
 gration of slave-holders, with their slaves, you change the 
 proportion of the blacks and whites,and weaken the weak- 
 est parts of the Union. 
 
 Although Virginia has a greater proportion of 'slaves 
 than any state in the Union, except Louisiana, yet on the 
 subject of slavery she is liable to no reproach. In her 
 declaration of independence, which preceded that of the 
 United States two months, she charged the British king 
 with an inhuman use of his negative, in not suffering her, 
 while a colony, to put an end to the slave trade. She 
 did put a stop to the slave trade during the revolution. 
 In the convention of 1787, while New Hampshire, Mas- 
 sachusetts, and Connecticut, united with Maryland and 
 the Southern states, to continue the slave trade for twen- 
 ty years, Virginia united with New Jersey, Pennsylvania, 
 and Delaware, to put an immediate end to it ; but was 
 unsuccessful. (r.) The offence of kidnapping is one of 
 the few offences for which the mild code of Virginia 
 provides the punishment of death ;(s.) while Pennsylva- 
 nia, as her Governor affirms, punishes that crime with 
 greater lenity than the offence of horse-stealing. (*.) 
 Virginia, indeed, keeps the blacks in a state of perpetual 
 minority ; because justice to her citizens, and the safety 
 
 (r.) See Journal of Convention, p. 291, 292. 
 (s.) Such was the law of 1792. The late revisal is not to 
 be had here. 
 
 (?.) Extract from the message of the governor of Pennsyl- 
 vania, Dec. ll, 18 1 9. 
 " It a melancholy fact, that our laws regard the stealing of a 
 horse a more heinous offence than that of stealing a man." 
 
27 
 
 of" the community, require it. And -whatever the safety 
 of the community requires, is right and lawful. 
 
 The tendency of the proposition to create jealousies 
 between the states, deserves serious consideration. It 
 seems to me to be a sacred duty of those who govern 
 this nation, to guard against every cause of division with 
 the utmost care, and to practice forbearance. The con- 
 stitution was formed in a spirit of concession ; and it has 
 been, and will be, necessary to administer it in the same 
 spirit. The people of the South deem the proposed 
 measure a serious wrong. That circumstance alone should 
 be a sufficient objection to any measure which cannot be 
 shewn to be essential to the preservation of the commu- 
 nity. In the effects of the embargo we have seen how 
 impolitic it is to adopt a measure against the general op- 
 position of a large section of the country. We saw that 
 measure repealed for want of power to enforce it ; but 
 not until it had produced extensive disaffection, which in 
 the last war paralized the right arm of the United States, 
 and led to that Convention which is now the subject of 
 universal regret. 
 
 You are about to prove to the Southern and Western 
 people that their property and their lives are unsafe un- 
 der your government ; that you mean to violate their 
 claim of a right to make laws for themselves. It will not 
 be good policy to convince the Southern and Western 
 people of this. Are you certain that injustice cannot 
 have the effect of breaking the bands of the Union ? 
 Doubtless they are strong ; but the attachment to life, 
 property, and the rights of freemen, is stronger. The 
 states who hold slaves cannot consent that any state shall 
 surrender to this government power over that description 
 of property. Its value amounts to five hundred millions 
 of dollars. Power over it has not been granted to this 
 government for any purpose, except that of taxation ; 
 nor can power over it be obtained by the concession of 
 particular states, or otherwise than by an amendment to 
 the constitution. 
 
 Every state is interested that every other state shall 
 preserve its rights. The states should possess the same 
 rights, so that the invasion ofthe rights of one should be 
 the invasion ofthe rights of all. You will unite in oppo- 
 sition ten of the states ; you will form local parties, the 
 most dangerous of all parties ; you will unite the state 
 governments, defending state rights, to the people, de- 
 fending their property to the amount of five hundred 
 millions. Louisiana, being equally interested in the con- 
 struction of the treaty, must make common cause with 
 Missouri, and the other slave-holding states may make 
 common cause with them. 
 
28 
 
 If you let the people of Missouri alone to exercise the 
 right of self-government, as it is exercised by the people 
 of the other states, perhaps they may of themselves ex- 
 clude slavery. If such is their sovereign will and plea- 
 sure, be it so. Let the will of the people be done. But 
 if you attempt to force your will upon them, perhaps 
 they may know and duly appreciate their rights. Then 
 they will not give up the sacred right of self-government. 
 The people who have not a right to legislate for them- 
 selves, are not free. They do not enjoy a republican 
 form of government. It would be an event to be la- 
 mented, if any portion of this free people should give up 
 their constitutional rights. 
 
 This proposition is hostile to the Western country. It 
 tends to retard the population of Missouri, and to put off 
 the time when other Western states shall come into the 
 Union. Let Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois remember what 
 portion of the Union is that which has uniformly favored 
 the growth and prosperity of the Western country. («.) 
 Let them remember what portion of the Union is that 
 which was for giving up the navigation of the Mississip- 
 pi to Spain. (v.) Whence came the politician who solicit- 
 ed power to cede the navigation of the Mississippi to 
 Spain? From New York.(w.) [The chairman (Mr. 
 Baldwin) decided that these remarks were not in order, 
 being inapplicable to the subject before the committee. 
 
 (w.) Debates Conv. Virginia, 2d vol. 131. " My honorable 
 friend gave a very just account of it when he said that the 
 Southern states were on their guard, and opposed every mea- 
 sure tending to relinquish or wave that valuable right, [the 
 navigation of the Mississippi.] They would not agree to nego- 
 tiate, but on condition that no proposition whatever should be 
 made to surrender that great right." 
 
 (v.) Same debates, p. 128. " A similar commission was giv- 
 en to the honorable die Secretary of Foreign Affairs on the part 
 of the United States, with these ultimata, * That he enter into 
 no treaty, compact, or convention whatever, with the said re- 
 presentative of Spain, which did not stipulate our right to the 
 navigation of the Mississippi, and the boundaries as established 
 in our treaty with Great Britain." 
 
 p. 129. " The delegates of the seven easternmost states vot- 
 ed that the ultimata in the Secretary's instructions be re- 
 pealed." 
 
 (w.) Same debates, p. 129, " We were greatly surprized 
 that it [a treaty of commerce] should form the priucipal object 
 of the project, and that a partial or temporary sacrifice of that 
 interest, for the advancement of which the negotiation was set 
 on foot, should be the consideration proposed to be given for it. 
 But the honorable Secretary (Mr. Jay) urged that it was neces* 
 sary to stand well with Spain," &c. 
 
29 
 
 Mr. Smyth appealed from the decision of the chair. Mr. 
 Clay (the Speaker) made some remarks in favor of allow- 
 ing- considerable latitude in the debate. The question 
 was not put,and Mr. Smyth proceeded.] Who opposed the 
 admission of the state of Illinois into the Union ? An 
 honorable member from New York.(x) Who opposed 
 the admission of the state of Alabama into the Union ? 
 An honorable member from New York.(y.) And who 
 has proposed a measure calculated to impede the growth 
 of Missouri, or to prevent her admission into the Union ? 
 An honorable member from New York.(z.) 
 
 Sir, there seems to be more in all this than meets the 
 eye. At the time of the adoption of the constitution, it 
 was said of the Eastern states, their language has been, 
 " Let us prevent any new states from rising- in the west- 
 ern world, or they will out-vote us. We will lose our 
 importance, and become as nothing- in the scale of na- 
 tions." This policy seems now to actuate some gentle- 
 men of New York. Perhaps the politicians of that state 
 see in the city of New Orleans a rising* rival to their 
 great emporium. Perhaps they see in the Mississippi 
 and its tributary streams, the rival of the navigation of the 
 North river, the grand canal, and the Lakes. Perhaps 
 they see in Missouri the very state which, at no distant 
 day, may balance the great Eastern state. If they see all 
 this, it is not surprizing that they are desirous to keep 
 down the rising power of the West. 
 
 An object which, as has been avowed, this measure is 
 intended ultimately to effect, and which it will in part ef- 
 fect, demands particular attention. That object is the 
 manumission of the blacks, without either dispersing or 
 colonizing them, to be effected by cooping them up in 
 narrow bounds, until their encreasing- numbers, combin- 
 ed with scarcity and hunger, shall render it necessary to 
 manumit them, for the purpose of getting rid of them, 
 Let us enquire whether this object would promote the 
 welfare of the community. Suppose that the slave-holding 
 states were at once to emancipate their slaves* and in- 
 crease the free black population to the number of two mil- 
 lions ; let us enquire what kind of citizens they are like 
 to become (a • The historian Edwards, says, " the Cha- 
 raibes of St. Vincent, and the Maroon negroes of Jamaica, 
 were originally enslaved Africans ; and what they now 
 are, the freed negroes of St. Domingo will hereafter be — 
 savages in the midst of society ; without peace, security, 
 
 (x.) Mr. Tallmadge. See Journal, for the vote. 
 
 fy.J Mr. Taylor. 
 
 (~z. ) The same. 
 
 (f<) History West Indies, 4 vol. 197. 
 
30 
 
 agriculture, or property ; ignorant of the duties of lite, 
 and unacquainted with all the soft and endearing relations 
 which render it desirable ; averse to labor, though free- 
 qoenlly perishing of want ; suspicious of each other, and 
 towards the rest of mankind revengeful and faithless, re- 
 morseless and bloody minded ; pretending to be free, 
 while groaning beneath the capricious despotism of their 
 chiefs and feeling all the miseries of servitude, without 
 the benefits of subordination." That distinguished poli- 
 tical philosopher, John Taylor of Caroline, is well ac- 
 quainted with the free blacks of Virginia, and thus gives 
 their character.(6) " A free negro and mulatto class live 
 upon agriculture as agents or brokers, for disposing of 
 stolen products. The situation of the free negro class is 
 exactly calculated to force it into every species of vice. 
 Cut off from most of the rights of citizens, and from all 
 the allowances of slaves, it is driven into every species of 
 crime for subsistence ; and destined to a life of idleness, 
 anxiety, and guilt. The slaves more widely share in its 
 guilt than in its fraudulent acquisitions. They owe to it 
 the perpetual pain of repining at their own condition, 
 by having an object of comparison before their eyes, 
 magnified by its idleness, and thefts, with impunity, into 
 a temptation the most alluring to slaves; and will eventu- 
 ally owe to it the consequences of their insurrections. The 
 whites will reap also a harvest of consequences from the 
 free negro class, and throughout all their degrees of rank 
 suffer much in their morals from the two kinds of inter- 
 course maintained with it. If vice is misery, this middle 
 class is undoubtedly placed in a state of misery itself, and 
 contributes greatly to that of the other two." 
 
 It would seem that the situation of the blacks would 
 not be improved, and that the state of society and the 
 public interest would be greatly injured, by this emanci- 
 pation, should it take place. But perhaps it will be said 
 that a partial and gradual emancipation is what is sought 
 for. If a total emancipation would be a great evil, a par- 
 tial emancipation would be a lesser evil. That such par- 
 tial emancipation is an evil, Col. Taylor, in the work I 
 have quoted, has clearly proved. 
 
 What would be the effect produced on the peace and 
 happiness of the United States were there in them two 
 races of people, free and equal, averse to mingling, one 
 viewing ?he other with contempt and scorn, the other 
 regarding those who despised them with hatred and 
 revenge? History affords some cases where, from differ- 
 ence of religion only, or of religion and descent, two 
 people residing in the same country were utterly averse 
 
 (b) In his work entitled " Arator," which no American far- 
 mer, planter, or politician, should be without. 
 
31 
 
 to each other. Such a case has generally produced con- 
 spiracies, massacres, treasons, and wars, until one of the 
 two people were either expelled or exterminated. 
 
 Thus, in the reign of Nero, the Jews and Syrians alter- 
 nately conspired against and massacred each other, with- 
 out distinction or mercy. In the reign of Trajan, the 
 same Jews butchered half a million of people in the pro- 
 vinces of Cyprus and Cyrehe ; they ate their flesh, drank 
 their blood, and made girdles of their intestines. They 
 revolted under Adrian, who killed 600,000 of them, and 
 dispersed the residue. They revolted under Constantine, 
 who cropped their ears, branded their bodies, dispersed 
 and sold them as slaves. 
 
 The history of Spain furnishes a case well worthy of 
 consideration. There dwelt two people, the one de- 
 scended from the Goths, the other from the Arabs,differ- 
 ing in complexion as well as religion They warred a- 
 gainst each other during eight centuries : and this strug- 
 gle terminated in the expulsion of one of the people. It 
 was at the close of a similar contest that the Auritse, ma- 
 ny centuries before, were expelledfrom Egypt and driv- 
 en into Palestine. At a period still more remote, the yel- 
 low Hindoos were expelled from India by a people of a dif- 
 ferent complexion. 
 
 About the year 378, the Romans deemed it necessary 
 to adopt the cruel expedient of massacreing 200.000 
 Goths dispersed in the cities of Asia. If we descend to- 
 ward modern times, we find in 1002, the Danes, residing 
 in England, were massacred by the English ; and in 1641, 
 the English, residing in Ireland, were massacred by the 
 Irish. Yet these were people who might have comming- 
 led without the one staining the other's blood. 
 
 We find that in the West Indies, neither the whites and 
 mulattoes, nor the negroes and mulattoes, can unite and 
 live together in the same country in peace and friendship, 
 "Rigaud, the mulatto chief, declared that no peace would 
 be permanent until one class of people, (the whites or 
 mulattoes) had exterminated the other ; and Tousaint L' 
 Ouverture, the negro chief, declared his intention, not 
 to leave a mulatto man alive in the country. (c) The whites 
 have been exterminated ; and the negroes and mulattoes 
 have formed distinct and hostile communities. 
 
 Suppose that a general emancipation was to take place, 
 and the two people were to commingle, what would be 
 the effect on the character of your country, throughout 
 the civilized world ? Would you be willing that your 
 nation should become a nation of mulattoes, and be con? 
 
 (c) Edwards' West Indies, 4 vol. p. 52, 232. 
 
32 
 
 sidered n a level with Hayti ? Are the two races really 
 equal ? If so, how is it that the race of whites has pro- 
 duced so many civilized nations in ancient and modern 
 times, and the race of African negroes not one? 
 
 The claims already made by the manumitted negroes 
 in our country are really worthy of observation. They 
 object with disdain to the plan of the colonization socie- 
 ty for settling the free blacks in Africa. The plan, say 
 they, is calculated to perpetuate slavery in the United 
 States. They claim that the slaves shall be emancipated, 
 and remain in the country « that they and their posterity, 
 shall constitute a portion of the sovereign American peo- 
 ple, (rf) 
 
 Sir, it is necessary that every constitutional effort shall 
 be made, both by the general and state governments, to 
 effect the future peace of the two people. Let an ocean 
 divide them. Let all except the full-blooded negro 
 slaves be colonized immediately, or with the least possi- 
 ble delay. Restore the original distinction, and let no 
 middle cast remain in the country. Let the enslaved 
 blacks be dispersed as much as possible ; their situation 
 will become more comfortable, and their chance of being 
 emancipated will become greater ; and, as they are eman- 
 cipated, let them be immediately sent to the colony. 
 For these purposes, let there be a rich colonization fund. 
 You have a right to raise money to provide for the gene- 
 ral welfare ; and by no appropriation of money that you 
 can make would you more promote the general welfare. 
 
 As the emancipation of the present race of blacks in 
 this country cannot be effected, the tendency of the 
 popular meetings, resolutions, pamphlets, and newspaper 
 p ublications, respecting this question, merit notice and 
 exposition. The philosophers, the abolition societies, 
 and societies of friends to the negroes, in Europe, who 
 
 (d) " No doubt," says Col. Taylor, " can exist of the conse- 
 quences of placing two nations of distinct colors and features on 
 the same theatre, to contend, not about sounds and signs, but 
 for wealth and power." 
 
 " Their manners," says Col. Taylor, speaking of our north- 
 ern brethren, " will neither be improved, nor their happiness 
 advanced, by sprinkling their cities with a yearly emigration of 
 thieves, murderers, and villains of every degree, though recom- 
 mended by the training of slavery, a black skin, a woolly body, 
 and an African contour. Rewards and punishments are ren- 
 dered useless by the lure of free negroes mingled with slaves, 
 and by the reproaches to masters, and sympathies for slaves, 
 breathed forth from the northern states. Sympathies, such as 
 if the negroes should transfer their affections from their own 
 species to the baboons." 
 
vers not at all interested in negro slavery themselves, 
 produced the catastrophe of St. Domingo. The philan- 
 thropists, societies, and popular meetings of the north, 
 are pursuing a similar course. Like causes produce like 
 effects. Our philanthropists n ay acquire as good a title 
 to the execrations of the southern people as Robespierre 
 and Gregoire acquired to the execration of the French 
 people of St. Domingo, (e) Here I will offer the opinion 
 of the historian Edwards, given after considering, with 
 great attention and near observation, the events of St., 
 Domingo. He says, "these reflections naturally arise 
 from the circumstance, which is insontrovertibly proved 
 in the following pages, namely, that the rebellion of the 
 negroes in St. Domingo, and the insurrection of the mu- 
 lattoes, had one and the same origin. It was not the 
 strong and irresistible impulse of human nature groaning 
 under oppression, that excited either of those classes to 
 plunge their daggers into the bosoms of unoffending wo- 
 men and helpless infants. They were driven to those 
 excesses by the vile machimtions of men calling them- 
 selves philosophers."(/) It appears that the proceedings 
 of the abolition society in London, those of the society 
 of friends to the negroes in France, and the writings and 
 speeches of Gregoire, Robespierre, and others, stirred 
 up the free people of color to claim equal rights, and 
 these instigated the negro slaves to insurrection. Oge, 
 the ambassador from the French reformers to the mu- 
 lattoes, made a confession, wherein he detailed at large 
 the measures which the colored people had fallen upon 
 to excite the negro slaves to rise into rebellion. (g) Here 
 we have a satisfactory proof of the ill effects of partial 
 emancipation in a slave holding country. Those very 
 colored men who were first favored with a grant of their 
 liberty were those who stirred up the slaves to revolt. 
 The same thing happened in Jamaica, where the Ma- 
 roons attempted to create a general revolt of the slaves, 
 who had, says Edwards, "been accustomed, for the pre- 
 ceding seven years, to hear of nothing but Mr. Wilber- 
 force, and his efforts to serve them in Great Britain. 
 The negroes on every plantation in the West Indies were 
 taught to believe that their masters were generally con- 
 sidered, in the mother country, as a set of odious and 
 abominable miscreants, whom it was laudable to mas- 
 sacre. (A) 
 
 (e) " Perish the colonies," said Robespierre, " rather than 
 sacrifice one iota of our principles." 
 
 (/) 4 Edwards's "West Indies, preface, xv, 
 
 [,§•) Same, page 53. 
 
 {h) 1 Edwards, appendix, p. 371. 
 
Let us look the danger that threatens us in the face, 
 Let us contemplate a revolt in its progress and conse- 
 quences. " Such a picture of human misery ; such a 
 scene of woe presents itself, as no other country, no for- 
 mer age, has exhibited. Upwards of one hundred thou- 
 sand savage people avail themselves of the silence and 
 obscurity of the night, and fall on the peaceful and un- 
 suspicious planters, like so many famished tygers, thirst- 
 ing for human blood. Revolt, conflagration, and massa- 
 cre, every where mark their progress; and death in all 
 its horrors, or cruelties and outrages, compared to which 
 immediate death is mercy, await alike the old and the 
 young, the matron, the virgin, and the helpless infant. 
 The rage of fire consumes what the sword is unable to 
 destroy ; and, in a few dismal hours, the most fertile and 
 beautiful plains in the world are converted into one vast 
 field of carnage ; a wilderness of desolation."(*) 
 
 Such is the " glorious cause, 5 * the " cause of unre- 
 deemed and un regenerated human beings," spoken of 
 by an orator of the last session; whose fault it does not 
 seem to have been, that his speech has neither produced 
 assassination nor insurrection.-' Such, it seems to us, is 
 the fate which our philanthropists are preparing for us. 
 If we escape it, we shall owe our escape to our strength, 
 foresig-ht, and vigilance, and not to the good will of our 
 philanthropists. 
 
 Upon this great question, which involves the construc- 
 tion of the constitution, and of a treaty with a foreign 
 power, we have memorials laid before us. Town-meet- 
 ings instruct us in our duty, and tell us their construction 
 of the constitution and the treaty. This is ridiculous 
 enough. But what is entitled to more serious attention, 
 is the declaration of the Governor of New York, that the 
 restriction should be imposed on Missouri, " whatever 
 may be the consequences." It seems that this eminent po- 
 litician would prefer civil war, servile war, or the sever- 
 ance of the Union, to not imposing a restriction that will 
 exclude the planters of the south from Missouri. Such, 
 a declaration, from sach a man, is alai'ming. The con- 
 solidation of the Union was the great object of the states- 
 men who gave us the constitution. It was the first wish 
 of their hearts. They desired to establish justice, and 
 ensure domestic tranquility ; but they never thought of 
 emancipation of slaves as the means. They desired to 
 establish justice; your plan violates justice, by depriving 
 the people of their property without compensation. They 
 desired to ensure domestic tranquility ; you destroy it. 
 No necessary concession was too great for them to make. 
 
 [i) 4 Edwards's West Indies, p. 68, 69. 
 
35 
 
 to secure the Union. They even granted to Delaware 
 an equal vote with Pennsylvania, in the Senate. But, to 
 the politicians of the present day, Union seems of little 
 importance : for the proposed restriction must be impos- 
 ed on Missouri, " whatever may be the consequences." 
 I will offer the sentiments of that assembly of Virginia 
 who deputed members to the federal convention, as ap- 
 plicable to the present discussion, and worthy of adoption. 
 " The crisis,'* say they, " is arrived, at which the good 
 people of America are to decide the solemn question, 
 whether they will, by wise and magnanimous efforts, 
 reap the just fruits of that independence which they 
 have so gloriously acquired, and of that Union which 
 they have cemented with so much of their common blood, 
 or whether, by giving way to unmanly jealousies and 
 prejudices, or to pariial and transitory interests, they 
 will renounce the auspicious blessings prepared for them 
 by the Revolution. The same noble and extended po- 
 licy, and the same fraternal and affectionate sentiments 
 which originally determined the citizens of this common- 
 wealth to unite with their brethren of the other states 
 in establishing a federal government, cannot but be felt 
 with equal force now, as motives to lay aside every infe- 
 rior consideration, and to concur in such further con- 
 cessions and provisions as may be necessary to secure 
 the great objects for which that government was insti- 
 tuted, and to render the United States as happy in peace 
 as they have been glorious in war." 
 
 Such having been the sentiments of the generation 
 who preceded us, shall we now part, about a question, 
 whether blacks who are slaves on the east side of the 
 Mississippi may or may not be removed to the west side 
 of that river ? Shall our mutual forbearance and bro- 
 therly affection cease ? Shall we become, as brothers ir- 
 ritated sometimes do become, the worst of foes ? Be- 
 fore such an event is produced, before our friendship 
 falls, like Lucifer, to rise no more, let us remember past 
 events, and contemplate our future prospects. Shall the 
 Union be destroyed, and the future fame, power, and 
 happiness of the nation lost ? May heaven avert a ca- 
 lamity, the consequences of which would be to blast the 
 fairest hopes of mankind. 
 
 But why should we ask of heaven to avert a calamity 
 which we may avert ourselves ? Are there none here 
 who would wish to have it recorded that they are the 
 men who saved the Union ; that to them is due the fu- 
 ture glory of the nation, and the benefits which she shall 
 confer on the world ? Now is the moment for the Decii 
 of the north to signalize themselves ; to laugh the pre- 
 
n 
 
 36 
 
 sumption of town-meetings to scorn. Yes; even to sa- 
 crifice their own inclinations, and their own opinions, on 
 the altar of their country. 
 
 If I am asked why we do not sacrifice our inclinations 
 and opinions, I answer, we conceive that the proposed 
 measure violates the constitution. It is not pretended 
 by any one that it would violate the constitution to omit 
 this restriction. We conceive that the proposed measure 
 threatens oar safety, at a period not remote. No one 
 can reasonably allege that to omit the restriction would 
 endanger the safety of the powerful people of the north. 
 
 I will not apologize for having taken up some of your 
 time. I have raised my feeble voice for the preservation 
 of the Union, and all its happy and glorious results ; for 
 the rights of the states; for the rights of the people; for 
 justice, humanity, and domestic tranquility ; to preserve 
 our citizens from massacre, our wives and daughters 
 from violation ; and our children from being impaled by 
 the most inhuman of savages. (k\ Whatever may be the 
 result, I have done my duty. 
 
 {k) 4 Edwards's West Indies, p. 75. " Their standard was 
 the body of a white infant, which they had recently impaled on 
 a stake." P. 79. " All the white, and even the mulatto chil- 
 dren, whose fathers had not joined in the revolt, were murr 
 dered," 
 
 t? 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS