YALE
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

SPEECH

MR. CLAY, OF KENTUCKY,

THE SUBJECT OF ABOLITION PETITIONS.

DKIITBHED

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

February 7, 1839.

WASHINGTON:
PRINTED BY OALES AND SEATON.
1839.

Cb8t.|83

SPEECH.

Mr. Clay, of Kentucky, rose to present a petition, and said : I have received,
Mr. President, a petition to the Senate and House of Representatives ofthe United
States, which I wish to present to the Senate. It is signed by several hundred
inhabitants of the District of Columbia, and chiefly of the city of Washington.
Among them I recognise the name of the highly esteemed Mayor of the city, and '
other resp(*ctable names, some of which arc personally and well known to me.
They express their regret that the subject of the abolition of slavery within the
District of Columbia continues to be pressed upon the consideration of Congress
by inconsiderate and misguided individuals in other parts of the United States.
"They state that they do not desire the abolition of slavery within the District, even
¦if Congress possess the very questionable power of abolishing it, without the con
sent of the people \yhose interests would be immediately and directly affected by
the measure ; that it is a question solely between the people of the District and'
their only constitutional Legislature, purely municipal, and one in which no exterior
influence or interest can justly interfere ; that, if at any future period the people
of this District should desire tlie abolition of slavery within it, they will doubtless
make their wisiies known, when it will be time enough to take the matter into
consideration ; that they do not, on this occasion, present themselves to Congress
because they are slaveholders^many of them are not — some of iheni are con
scientiously opposed to .slavery — but they appear because they justly respect the
rights of those who own that description of property, and because they entertain
a deep conviction that the continued agitation of the question, by those who have
no right to interfere with it, has an injurious influence on the peace and tranquillity
of the community, and upon the well-being and happiness of those who are held
in subjection ; they finally protest as well against the unnutliorizcd intervention
of which they complain, as against any legislation on the part of Congress in
compliance therewith. But, as I wish these respectable petitioners to be them
selves heard, I request lliat their petition may be read. [It was read accordingly,
and Mr. Clay proceeded.] I am informed by the committee which requested nie
to offer this petition, and believe, that it expresses the almost unanimous sentiments
of the people of the District of Columbia.
The performance of this service affords me, said Mr. C, a legitimate opportunity,
of which, with the permission of the Senate, I mean now to avail myself, to say
something, not Only on the particular objects of the petition, but upon the great
and interesting subject with which it is intimately associated.
It is well known to the Senate, said Mr. Clay, that I have thought that the
most judicious course with abolition petitions has not been of late pursued by
Congress. I have believed that it would have been wisest to have received and"
referred them, without opposition, and to have reported against their object in a
calm and dispassionate and argumentative appeal to the good sense of the whole
community. It has been supposed, however, by a majority of Congress, that it
was most expedient either not to receive the petitions at all, or if formally received^
not to act definitively upon them. There is no substantial difference between these
opposite opinions, since both look to an absolute rejection of the prayer of the
petitioners. But there is a great difference in the form of proceeding ; and, Mr.
President, some experience in the conduct of human affairs has taught me to be
lieve that a neglectto observe established forms is often attended with more ms-
chievous consequences than the inflictioii of a positive injury. We all know that.

even in private life, a violation of the existing usages and ceremonies of sociLl .
cannot take place without serious prejudice. 1 fear, sir, that the abolitionists h-M
acquired a considerable apparent force by blending with the object which till -
have in view a collateral and totally different question, arising out of an allegf^"'
violation of the right of petition. I know full well, and take great pleasurel'"
testifying, that nothing w*is remoter from the intention of the majority of Ijlifi
Senate, from which I differed, than to violate the right of petition in any casojin-
which, according to its judgment, that right could be constitutionally exercised, 'or
where the object of the petition could be safely or properly granted. Still, it must
be owned that the abolitionists have seized hold of the fact of the treatment which '
their petitions have received in Congress, and made injurious impressions upon the
minds of a large portion of the community. This, I think, might have been
avoided by the course which I should have been glad to have seen pursued.
And I desire now, Mr. President, to advert to some of those topics which I think
might have been usefully imbodied in a report by a committee of the Senate, and
which, I am .persuaded, would have checked the progress, if it had not altogether
arrested the efforts of abolition. I am sensible, sir, that this work would have
been accomplished with much greater abijily and with much happier .effect, under
the auspices of a committee, than it can he by me. But, anxious as I always, am
to contribute whatever is in my power to the harmony, concord, and happiness of
this groat people, I feel myself irresistibly impelled to do whatever is in my power,.
incompetent as I feel myself to be, to dissuade the public from continuing to agitate
a subject fraught with the most direful consequences.
There are three classes of persons opposed, or apparently opposed, to the con-
4inued existence of slavery in the United States. The first are those who, from
sentiments of philanthropy and humanity, are conscientiously opposed lo the ex
istence of slavery, but who are no less opposed, at the same time, to any disturbance
of the peace and tranquillity of the Union, or the infringement' of the powers of
the States composing the Confederacy. In this class may be comprehended that
peaceful and exempliyy society of " Friends," one of whose established maxims
is, an abhorrence of war in all its forms, and the cultivation of peace and good-will
amongst mankind. The next class consists of apparent aboliiionists — that is, those
who, having been persuaded that the right of petition has been violated by Con
gress, co-operate with the abolitionists for the sole purpose of asserting and vindi
cating that right. And the third class are the real ultra-abolitionists, who are
resolved to persevere in the pursuit of their object at all hazards, and without regard
to any consequences, however .calamitous they may be. With them the rights of
properly are nothing ; the deficiency of the, powers of the General Government
is nothing,; the acknowledged and incontestable powers of the States are nothing;.
civil war, a dissolution of the Union, and the overthrow of a Government in which
are concentrated the fondest hopes of the civilized world, are nothing. A single
idea has taken possession of th^iir minds, and onward they pursue it, overlooking
all barriers, reckless and regardless of all consequences. With this class, the im
mediate abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, and in the Territory of
Florida, the prohibition of the removal of slaves from State to State, and the refusal
to admit any new State, comprisjng within its limits the institution of domestic
slavery, are but so many means conducing to the accomplishment of the ultimate
b,ut perilous end at which they avowedly and boldly aim ; are but so many short
stages in the long ajid bloody road to the distant goal at which they would finally
arrive. Their purpose is abolitiqn, universal abolition, peaceably if it can, forcibly
if it must. Their object is no longer concealed by the thinnest veil ; it is avowed
a;id proclaimed. Utterly destitute of constitutional or other rightful power, living
in totally disti.-ict communities, as alien to the communities in which the subject on
which they would operate resides, sb far asconcerns political power over that subject,.
as if they lived in Africa or Asia, they nevertheless promulgate to the world their pur
pose to be to manumit forthwith, a!id without compensation, and without moral prep-

ration, three millions of negro slaves, under jurisdictions altogether separated from
,ho3e under which they live. I have said that immediate abolhion of slavery in the
District of Columbia and in the Territory of Florida, and the exclusion of new States,
were only means towards the attainment of a much more important end. Unfortunate
ly, they are not the only means. Another and much more lamentable one is that
which this class is endeavoring to employ, of arraying one portion against another
portion ofthe Union. With that view, in all theirleading prints and publications, the
alleged horrors of slavery are depicted in the most glowing and exaggerated colors,
to excite the imaginations and stimulate the rage of the people in ihe free States
against the people in the slave States. The slaveholder is held up and represented
as the most atrocious of human beings. Advertisements of fugitive slaves and of
slaves to be sold are carefully collected and blazoned forth, to infuse a spirit of
detestation and hatred against one entire and the largest section of the Union;
and, like a notorious agitator upon another theatre, they would hunt down and
proscribe from the pale of civilized society the inhabitants of that entire section.
Allow me, Mr. President, to say, that whilst I recognise in the justly wounded
feelings of the Minister of the United States at the Court of St. James much to
excuse the notice which he was provoked to take of that agitator, in my humble
opinion, he would better have consulted the dignity of his station and of his coun
try in ti'eating him with contemptuous silence. He would exclude us from European
society — he who himself can only obtain a contraband admission, and is received
with scornful repugnance ifito it ! If he be no more desirous of our society than
we are of his, he may rest assured that a state of eternal non-intercourse will exist
between us. Yes, sir, I think the American Minister would have best pursued the
dictates of true dignity by regarding the language of the member of the British
House of Commons as the malignant ravings of the plunderer of his own country,
and the libeller of a foreign and kindred people.
But the means to which I have already adverted are not the only ones which
this third class of ultra-abolitionists ,are employing to effect their ultimate end.
They began their operations by professing to employ only persuasive means in
appealing lo the humanity and enlightening the understandings of the slavehold-.
ing portion ofthe Union. If there were some kindness in this avowed motive, it
must be acknowledged that there was rather a presumptuous display also of an
assuined superiority in intelligence and knowledge. For some time they continu
ed to make these appeals to our duty and our interest ; but impatient with the
slow influence of their logic upon our stupid minds, they recently resolved to
change their system of action. To the agency of their powers of persuasion, they
now propose to substitute the powers ofthe ballot box; and he must be blind to
what is passing before us, who does not perceive that the inevitable tendency of
their proceedings is, if these should be found insufficient, to invoke, finally, the
more potent powers ofthe bayonet.
Mr. President, it is at this alarming stage of the proceedings ofthe ullra-aboli-
tionists that I would seriously invite every considerate man in the country solemn
ly to pause, and deliberately to reflect, not merely on our existing posture, but
upon that dreadful precipice down which they would hurry us. Itis because these
ultra-abolitionists have ceased to employ the instruments of reason and persua
sion, have made their cause political, and have appealed to the ballot box, that I
am induced, upon this occasion, to address you.
There have been three epochs in the history of our country at which the spirit
of abolition displayed itself. The first was immediately after the formation ofthe
present Federal Government. When the Constitation was about going into opera
tion, its powers were not well understood by the communit)' at larg?, and remain
ed to be accurately interpreted and defined. At that period numerous abolition
societies were formed, comprising not merely the Societj' of Friends, but many
other good men. Petitions were presented to Congress, praying for the abolition
.of slavery. They were received without serious opposition, referred, and report-

ed lipon by a cotomltlfee. The report stated that the General Government had
no power to abolish slavery as it existed in the several States, and that these
States themselves had exclusive jurisdiction over the subject. The report vyas
generally atquiesced in, and satisfaction and tranquillity ensued ; the abolition
sotieties thereafter limiting their e.xertions, in respect to the black population, to ¦
offices of liomanily within the scope of existing laws.
The next period when the subject of slavery, and abolition incidentally, was -
brought into notice and discussion, was that on the memorable occasion of ihe ad
mission ofthe State of Missouri into the Union. The struggle was long, strenu
ous, and fearful. It is too recent to make it necessary to do'more than merely
advert to it, and to say, that it was finally composed by one of those compromises
characteristic of our institutions, and of which the Constitution itself is the most
signal instance. .
The third is that in which we now find ourselves. Various causes, Mr. Presi
dent, have contributed lo produce the existing excitement on the subject of aboli
tion. The principal one, perhaps, is the example of British emancipation of the
slaves in the islands adjacent to our countrj'. Swch is the similarity in laws, in
language, in institutions, and in common origin, between Great Britain and the
United States, that no great measure of national policy can be adopted in the one-
country without producing a considerable degree of influence in the other. Con
founding the totally different cases together, of the powers of the British Parlia-
nient and those of the Congress of the United States, and the totally different
situations ofthe British West India islands, and the slaves in the sovereign and
independent States of this Confederacy, superficial men have inferred from the un
decided British experiment the practicability of the abolition of slavery in these
States. The powers of the British Parliament are unlimited, and are often de
scribed to be omnipotent. The powers ofthe American Congress, on the contrary,
are few, cautiously limited, scrupulously excluding all that are not granted, and,
above all, carefully and absolutely excluding all power over the existence or con
tinuance of slavery in the several States. The slaves, too, upon which British
legislation operated, were not in the bosom ofthe kingdom, bttt in remote and
'feeble colonies, having no voice in Parliament. The West India slaveholder was
neither represented nor representative in that Parliament. And whilst 1 raost-
fervontly wish complete success to tbe British experiment of West India emanci
pation, I confess that I have fearful forebodings of a disastrous termination of it.
Whatever it maybe, I think it must be admitted that, if the British Parliament
treated the West India slaves as freemen, it also treated the West India freemen
as slaves. If, instead of these slaves being separated by a wide ocean from the
parent country, three or four millions of African negro slaves had been dispersed
over England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, and their owners had been members
ofthe British Parliament — a case which would have presented some analogy to
?hatof our own countrj' — does any one believe that it would have been expedient
or practicable to have emancipated them, leaving them to remain, with all their
imbiltered feelings, in the United Kingdom, boundless as the powers ofthe British
Parliament are ?
Other causes have conspired with the British example to produce the existing^
excitement from abolition. I say it with profound regret, but with no intention to
occasion irritation here or elsewhere, that there are persons in both parts of the
Union who have sought to mingle abolition with politics, and to array one portion
ofthe Union against the other. It is the misfortune in free counlHes that, in high
party limes, a disposition too often prevails to seize hold of every thing which can
- strengthen the one side or weaken the other. Charges of fostering abolition
designs have been heedlessly and unjustly made by one party against the other.
Prior to the late election of the present P/esident ofthe United Slate«, he was
charged with being an abolitionist, and abolition designs were imputed to many of
his supporters. Much as I was opposed to his electiQn,-and am to his administra-"

tion, I neither shared in making nor believing the truth of the charge. He was
scarcely installed in office before the same charge was directed against those who
opposed his election.
Mr. President, it is not true, and I rejoice that it is not true, that either of the
two great parties in this country has any designs or aim at abolition 1 should
deeply lament if it were true. I should consider, if it were true, thai i:ie danger
to the stability of our system would be infinitely greater than any wh ch does, 1
hope, actually exist. Whilst neither party can be, I think, justly accused of any
abolition tendency or purpose, both have profited, and both have been injured, in
particular localities, by the accession or abstraction of abolition support. If the
account were fairly stated, I believe the party to which 1 am opposed has profited
much more, and been injured much less, than that to which I belong. But I am
fur, for that reason, from being disposed to accuse our adversaries of being aboli
tionists. And now, Mr. President, allow me to consider the several cases in which the
authority of Congress is invoked by these abolition petitioners upon the subject of
domestic slavery. The first relates to it as it exists in the District of Columbia.
The following is the provision ofthe Constitution ofthe United States in reference
to that matter :
" To exercise exclusive legislation in all cased whatsoever over such District (not exceeiling
ten miles square) as may by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become
the seat of Government ofthe United States."
This provision preceded, in point of lime, the actual cessions which were made
by the States of Maryland and Virginia. The object of the cession was lo establish
a seat of Government of the United States; and the grant in the Constitution of
exclusive legislation must be understood, and should be always interpreted, as hav
ing relation to the object of the cession. It was with a full knowledge of this
clause in the Constitution that those two Stales ceded lo the General Government
the ton miles square constituting the District of Colunibia. In making the cession,
they supposed that it was to be applied, and applied solely, to the purposes of a seat
of Government, for which it was asked. When it was made, slavery existed in both
those Commonwealths, and in the coded territory, as it now continues to exist in
all of them. Neither Maryland nor Virginia could have anticipated that, whilst the
institution remained within their respective limits, its abolition would be attempted
by Congress without their consent. Neither of them would probably have made
an unconditional cession, if they could have anticipated such a result.
From the nature ofthe provision in the Constitution, and the avowed object of
the acquisition of the territory, two duties arise on the part of Congress. The first
is, to render the District available, comfortable, and convenient, as a seat of Gov
ernment of the whole Union ; the other is, to govern the people within the Disirict
so as best to promote their happiness and prosperity. These objects are totally
distinct in their nature, and, in interpreting and exercising the grant of the power
of exclusive legislation, that distinction should he constantly borne in mind. Is it
necessary, in order to render this place a comfortable seat ofthe General Govern
ment, to abolish slavery within its limits 1 No one can or will advance such a prop
osition. The Government has remained here ne^ir forly years, nithout the slight
est inconvenience from the presence of domestic slavery. Is is necessary lo iho
well-being of the people of the District that slavery should be abolished from
amongst them 1 They not only neither ask nor desire, but are almost unanimously
opposed to it. It exists here in the mildest and most mitigated form. In a popu
lation of 39,834 there were, at the last enumeration ofthe population ofthe United
States, but 6,119 slaves. The number has notprobably much increased since. They
are dispersed over the ten miles square, engaged in the quiet pursuits of husbandry,
or in menial offices in domestic life. If it were necessary lo the efficiency ofthis
place as a seat ofthe General Government lo abolish slavery, which is utterly de
nied, the abolition should be confined to the necessity which prompts it, that is, to

the limits ofthe city, of Washington itself. Beyondthose limits, persons concern
ed in the Government of the United States have no more to do with the inhabit
ants of the District than they have with the inhabitants of the adjacent counties =ef
Maryland and Virginia which lie beyond the District. ;
To abolish slavery within the District of Columbia, whilst it remains in Vir
ginia and Maryland', situated as that District is, within the very heart of those
Slates, would expose them to great practical inconvenience and annoyance. The
District would become a place of refuge and escape for fugitive slaves from the
two States, and a place from-which a spirit of discontent, insubordination, and in
surrection, might be fostered and encouraged in the two States. Suppose, as was
at one time under consideration, Pennsylvania had granted ten miles square within
Its limits for' the purpose of a seat of the General Government: could Congress,
without a violation of good faith, have introduced and established slavery within
Ihe bosoin of that Commonwealth, in the ceded territory, after she had abolished it
no long ago asthe year 1780 ? Yet the inconvenience to Pennsylvania in the case
supposed would have been much less than that to Virginia and Maryland in the
ease we are arguing.
It was upon this view of the subject'that the Senate, at its lastsession, solemnly
declared that it would be a violation of implied faith, resulting from the transaction
ofthe cession, to abolish slavery within the District of Columbia. And would it
not be 1 By implied faith is meant that when a grant is made for one avowed and
declared purpose, known to the parlies, the grant should not be perverted to an-
¦ other purpose, unavowed and undeclared, and injurious to the grantor. The grant,
;in the case we are considering, of the territory of Columbia, was for a a seat of
Government. Whatever pflwer is necessary to accomplish that object is carried
along by the grant. But the abolition of slavery is not necessary to the enjoyment
ofthis site as a seat ofthe General Government. The grant in the Constitution,
of exclusive power of legislation over the District, was made to insure the exercise
of an exclusive authority of the General Government to rendet this place a safe
and secure seat of Government, and to promote the well-being of the inhabitants of
the District. The power granted ought to be interpreted and exercised solely to
the end for which it was granted. The language of the grant was necessarily
broad, comprehensive, and exclusive, because all the exigencies which might arise
to render this a secure seat ofthe General Government could not have been fore
seen and provided for. The language may possibly be sufBciently comprehensive
to include a power of abolition, but it would not at all thence follow that the power
could be rightfully exercised. The case may be resembled to that of a pleni
potentiary invested with a plenary power, but who, at the same time, has positive
instructions from his Government as to the kind of treaty .which he is to negotiate
and conclude. If he violates those instructions, and concludes a different treaty,
his Government is not bound by it. And if the foreign Government is aware ofthe
violation, it acts in bad faith. Or it may be illustrated by an example drawn from
private life. I am an endorser for my friend on a note discounted in bank. He
applies to me to endorse another to renew it, which I do in blank. Now, this gives
him power to make any other use of my note which he pleases. But if, instead of
applying it to the intended purpose, he goes to a broker and sells it, thereby doub
ling my responsibility for him, he commits a breach of trust, and a violation ofthe
good faith implied in the whole transaction.
But, Mr. President, if this reasoning were as erroneous as I believe it to be cor
rect and conclusive, is the affair of the liberation of six thousand negro slaves in
this District, disconnected with the three millions of slaves in the United States, of
sufficient magnitude to agitate, distract, and imbitter this great Confederacy?
The next case in which the petitioners ask the exercise of the power of Con
gress relates to slavery in the Territory of Florida.
Florida is the extreme Southern portion of the United States. It is bounded on
«11 its land sides by slave Slates, and is several hundred miles from the nearest

free State. It almost extends within the tropics, and the nearest important island
to it on the water side is Cuba, a slave island. This simple statement of its geo
graphical position should of itself decide the question. When, by the treaty of
1819 with Spain, it was ceded to the United Stales, slavery existed within it. By
the terms of that treaty, the effects and property oi the inhabitants are secured to
them, and ihey are allowed to remove and lake them away, if they think proper to
do so, without limitation as to lime. If it were expedient, therefore, lo abolish
slavery in it, it could not be done consistently with the treaty, without granting to
the ancient inhabitants a reasonable time to remove their slaves. But further. By
the compromise which took place on the passage of the act for the admission of
Missouri into the Union, in the year 1820, it was agreed and understood that the
line of 36 deg. 30 min. of north latitude should mark the boundary between the
free States and the slave Slates to be created in the territories of the United States
ceded by the treaty of Louisiana ; those situated south of it being slave States, and
those north of it free Stales. But Florida is south of that line, and, consequently,
according to the spirit of the understanding which prevailed at the period alluded
to, should be a slave State. It may be true that the compromise does not in terms
embrace Florida, and that it is not absolutely binding and obligatory ; but all can
did and impartial men must agree that it ought not to be disregarded without the
most weighty considerations, and thai nothing could be more to be deprecated than to
open anew the bleeding-wounds which were happily bound up and healed by that
compromise. Florida is the only remaining Territory to be admitted into the Union
with the institution of domestic slavery, while Wisconsin and Iowa are now nearly
ripe for admission without it.
The next instance in which the exercise of the power of Congress is solicited
is that of prohibiting what is denominated, by the petitioners, the slave trade
between the States, or, as it is described in abolition petitions, the traffic in human
beings between the Stales. This exercise of the power of Congress is claimed
under that clause of the Constitution which invests it with authority to regulate
commerce with foreign nations, and among the several Slates, and with the Indian
tribes. The power to regulate commerce among the several Slates, like other
powers in the Constitution, has hitherto remained dormant in respect lo the inte
rior trade by land between the States. It was a power granted, like all the other
powers of the General Government, to secure peace and harmony among the
States. Hitherto it has not been necessary to exercise it. All the cases in which,
during the progress of lime, it may become expedient to exert the general
authority to regulate commerce between the States, cannot be conceived. We
may easily imagine, however, contingencies which, if they were to happen, might
require the interposition of the common authoritj'. If, for example, the State of
Ohio were, by law, to prohibit any vessel entering the port of Cincinnati, from
the port of Louisville, in Kentucky, if that case be not already provided for by
the laws which regulate our coasting trade, it would be competent lo the General
Government to annul the prohibition emanating from State authority. Or if the
State of Kentucky were to prohibit the introduction, within its limits, of any
articles of trade, the production of the industry of the inhabitants of the State of
Ohio, the General Government might, by its authority, supersede the State enact
ment. But I deny that the General Government has any authority whatever,
from the Constitution, to abolish what is called the slave trade, or, in other words,
to prohibit the removal of slaves from one slave State to another slave State.
The grant in the Constitution is of a power of regulation, and not prohibition.
It is conservative, not destructive. Regulation ex vi termini implies the continued
existence or prosecution of the thing regulated. Prohibition implies total dis
continuance or annihilation. The regulation intended was designed to facilitate
and accommodate, not to obstruct and incommode, the commerce to be regulated.
Can it be pretended that, Tinder this power to regulate commerce among the
Stales, Congress has the power to prohibit the transportation of live stock whichi

10
in countless numbers, are daily passing from the Western and interior States to
the Southern, Southwestern, and Atlantic States? The moment the incontestable
fact is admitted ^that negro slaves are property, the law of moveable property
irresistibly attaches itself to them, and secures the right of carrying them from
one to another State, where they are recognised as properly, without any hin-
derance whatever from Congress.
But, Mr. President, I will not detain the Senate longer on the subjeijts of slavery
within the District and in Florida, and of the right of Congress to prohibit the
removal of slaves from one Slate to another. These, as I have already intimated,
with ulira-abolitionists, are but so many masked batteries, concealing the real and
ultimate point of attack. That point of attack is the institution of domestic
slavery as it exists in these States. It is to liberate three millions of slaves held
in bondage within them. „ And now allow me, sir, to glance at the insurmountable
obstacles which lie in the way of the accomplishment of this end, and at some of
the consequences which would ensue if it were possible to attain it.
, The first impediment is the utter and absolute want of all power on the part of
the General Government to effect the purpose. The Constitution of the United
States creates a limited Government, comprising comparatively few powers, and
leaving the residuary mass of political power in the possession of the several
States. It is well known that the subject of slavery interposed one of the great
est difficulties in the formation of the Constitution. It was happily compromised
and adjusted in a spirit of harmony and patriotism. According to that compro
mise, no power whatever was granted to the General Government in respect to
domestic slavery, but that which relates to taxation and representation, and the
power to restore fugitive slaves to their lawful owners. .\11 other power in regard
to the institution of slavery was retained exclusively by ihe States, to be exercised
by them severally, according to their respective views of their own peculiar inte
rest. The Constitution ofthe United States never could have been formed «pon
the principle of investing the General Government with authority to abolish
the institution at its pleasure. It never can be continued for a single day if the
exercise of such a power be assumed or usurped.
But it may be contended by these ultra-abolitionists that their object is not to
stimulate the action of the General Government, but to operate upon the States
themselves in which the institution of domestic slavery exists. If that be their
object, why are these abolition societies and movements all confined to the free
States ? Why are the slave States wantonly and cruelly assailed 1 Why do the
abolition presses teem with publications tending to excite hatred and animosity on
the part of the inhabitants of the free States against those of the slave Stales ?
Why is Congress petitioned? The free States have no more power or right to
interfere with institutions in the slave States, confided to the exclusive jurisdiction
of those States, than-they would have to interfere with institutions existing in any
foreign country. What would be thought of the formation of societies in Great
Britain, the issue of numerous inflammatory publications, and the sending out of
lecturers throughout the kingdom, denouncing and aiming at the destruction of
any of the institutions of France ? Would they be regarded as proceedings war
ranted by good neighborhood ? Or what would be thought of the formation of
societies in the slave States, the issue of violent and inflammatory tracts, and the
deputation of missionaries, pouring out impassioned denunciations against institu
tions under the exclusive control of the free States? Is their purpose to appeal
t^o our understandings, and to actuate our humanity? And do they expect to
Accomplish that purpose by holding us up to the scorn, and contempt, and detesta
tion, of the people of the free States and the whole civilized world ? The slavery
which exists among us is our affair, not theirs ; and they have no more just con
cern with it than they have with slavery as it exists throughout the world. Why
not leave it to us, as the common Constitution of our country has left it, to be
dealt with, under the guidance of Providence, as best we may or can ?

11
The next obstacle in the way of abolition arises out of the fact ofthe presence
in the slave States of.three millions of slaves. They are there, dispersed through
out the land, part and parcel of our population. They were brought into the
country originally under the authority of the parent Government whilst we were
colonies, and their importation was continued in sphe of all the remonstrances of
our ancestors. If the question were an original question, whether, there being no
slaves within the country, we should introduce them, and incorporate them into
our society, that would be a totally different question. Few, if any, of the citi
zens ofthe United States would be found to favor their introduction. No man in
It would oppose, upon that supposition, their admission with more determined
resolution and .conscientious repugnance than I should. But that is not the ques
tion. The slaves are here ; no practical scheme for their removal or separation
from us has been yet devised or proposed ; and the true inquiry is, what is best to
be done with them. In human affairs we are often constrained, by the force of
circumstances and the actual state of things, to do what we would not do if that
state of things did not exist. The slaves are here, and here must remain, in some
condition ; and, I repeat, how are they to be best governed? What is best lo be
done for their happiness and our own? In ihe slave States the alternative is, that
the white man must govern the black, or the black govern the white. In several
of those States the number of the slaves is greater than that ofthe white popula
tion. An immediate abolition of slavery in them, as these ultra-abolitionists pro
pose, would be followed by a desperate struggle for immediate ascendency of the
black race overihe white race, or rather it would be followed by instantaneous
collisions between the two races, which would break out into a civil war that
would end in the extermination or subjugation of the one race or the other. In
such an alternative, who can hesitate? Is it not better for both parties that the
existing state of things should be preserved, instead of exposing them lo the hor
rible strifes and contests which would inevitably attend an immediate abolition 2
This is our true ground of defence for the continued existence of slavery in our
country. It is that which our revolutionary ancestors assumed. It is that which,
in my opinion, forms our justification in the eyes of all Christendom.
A third impediment to immediate abolition is to be found in the immense amount
of capital which is invesled in slave property. The total number of slaves in the
-United States, according to the last enumeration of the population, was a littlf?
upwards of two millions. Assuming their increase at a ratio, which it probably
is, of five per cent, per annum, their present number would be three millions.
The average value of slaves at this time is stated by persons well informed to be
as high as five hundred dollars each. To be certainly within the mark, let us sup
pose that it is only four hundred dollars. The tofalvalue, then, by that estimate,
of the slave properly in the United States, is twelve hundred millions of dollar.".
This property is diffused throughout all classes and conditions of society. It is
owned by widows and orphans, by the aged and infirm, as well as the sound and
vigorous. It is the subject of mortgages, deeds of trust, and family settlements.
It has been made the basis of numerous debts contracted upon its faith, and is the
sole reliance, in many instances, of creditors within ajid without the slave States,
for the payment of the debts due to them. And now it is rashly proposed, by a
single fiat of legislation, fo annihilate this immense amount of property I To an
nihilate it without indemnity and without compensation to its owners I Does anj-
considerate man believe it to be possible to effect such an object without convul
sion, revolution, and bloodshed ?
[ know that there is a visionary dogma which holds that negro slaves cannot be
the subject of property. I shall not dwell long with this speculative abstraction.
That is property which the law declares to be property. Two hundred years of
legislation have sanctioned and sanctified negro slaves as property. Under all the
forms of government which have existed upon this continent during that long space
of time — under the British Government — under the Colonial Government — under

12
all the State Constitutions and Governments — and under the Federal Government
itself— they have been deliberately and solemnly recognised as the legitimate sub
jects of property. To the »'ild speculations of theorists and innovators stands op
posed the fad, that in an uninterrupted period of two hundred years' duration,
under every form of human legislation, and by all the departments of human gov
ernment, African negro slaves have been held and respected, have descended and
been transferred, as lawful and indisputable property. They were treated as
properly in the very British example which is so triumphantly appealed to as
worthy 'of our imitation. Although the West India planters had no voice in the
united Parliament of the British Isles, an irresistible sense of justice extorted
from that Legislature the grant of twenty millions of pounds sterling to compen
sate the colonists for their loss of property.
If, therefore, these ultra-abolitionists are seriously determined to pursue their
scheme of immediate abolition, they should at once set about raising a fund of
twelve hundred millions of dollars, to indemnify the owners of slave property.
And the taxes to raise that enormous amount can only be justly assessed upon
themselves or upon lire free States, if they can persuade them to assent to such
an assessment; for it would be a mockery of all justice and an outrage against all
equity to levy any portion of the tax upon the slave States to pay for their own
unquestioned property.
If the considerations to which I have already adverted are not sufficient to dis
suade the abolitionists from further perseverance in their designs, the interest of
the very cause which they profess to espouse ought to check their career. Instead
of advancing, by their efforts, that cause, they have thrown back for half a century
the prospect of any species of emancipation of the African race, gradual or im
mediate, in any of "the Stales. They have done more ; they have increased the
rigors of legislation against slaves in most, if not all, of the slave States. Forty
years ago the question was agitated in the State of Kentucky of a gradual eman
cipation of the slaves within its limits. By gradual emancipation, I mean that
slow but safe and cautious' liberation of slaves which was first adopted in Penn
sylvania, at the instance of Dr. Franklin, in the year 1780, and according to
which, the generation in being were to remain in slavery, but all their offspring
born after a specified day were to be free at the age of twenty-eight, and, in the
mean time, were to receive preparatory instruction to qualify them for the enjoy-
.ment of freedom. That was the species of emancipation which, at the epoch to
which I allude, was discussed in Kentucky. No one was rash enough to propose
or think of immediate abolition. No one was rash enough to think of throwing
loose upon the community, ignorant and unprepared, the untutored- slaves of the
'State. Many thought, and I amongst them, that as each of the slave States had
a right exclusively to judge for itself in respect to the institution of domestic
slaver}', the proportion of slaves compared with the white population in that State,
at that time, was so inconsiderable that a system of gradual emancipation might
have been safely adopted, without any hazard to the security and interests of the
Commonwealth. And I still think that the question of such emancipation in the
fanning States is one whose solution depends upon the relative numbers of the
two races in any given State. If I had been a citizen of the State of Pennsyl
vania, when Franklin's plan was adopted, I should have voted for it, because by
no possibility could the black race ever acquire the ascendency in that State, But
if I had been then, or were now, a citizen of any of the planting States — the
Southern or Southwestern States — I should have opposed, and would continue to
oppose, any scheme whatever of emancipation, gradual or immediate, because of
the danger of an ultimate ascendency of the black race, or of a civil contest which
might terminate in the extinction of one race or the other.
The proposition in Kentucky for a gradual emancipation did not prevail, but it
was sustained by a large arid respectable minority. That minority had increased,
and was increasing, until the abolitionists commenced their operations. The effect

13
has been to dissipate all prospects whatever, for the present, of any scheme of
gradual or other emancipation. The people of that Stale have become shocked
and alarmed by these abolition movements, and the number who would now favor
a system even of gradual emancipation is probably less than it was in the years
]798-'9. "At the session of the Legislature held in 1837-'8, the question of call
ing a convention was submitted to the consideration of the people by a law passed
in conformity with the Constitution of the State. Many motives existed for the
passage of the law, and among them that of emancipation had its influence.
WHien the question was passed upon by the people', at their last annual election,
only about one fourth of the whole voters of the State supported a call of a con
vention. The apprehension of the danger of. abolition was the leading considera
tion amongst the people for opposing the call. But for that, but for the agitation
of the question of abolition in Slates whose population had no right, in the opin
ion of the people of Kentucky, to interfere in the matter, the vote for a conven
tion would have been much larger, if it had not been carried. I felt myself con
strained to take immediate, bold, and decided ground against it.
Prior to the agitation ofthis subject of abolition, there was a progressive melio
ration in the condition of slaves throughout all the slave States. In some of them,
schools of instruction were opened by humane and religious persons. These are
all now checked ; and a spirit of insubordination having shown itself in some lo
calities, traceable, it is believed, to abolition movements and exertions, the-legis-
lativc authority has found it expedient to infuse fresh vigor into the police and
laws which regulate the conduct ofthe slaves.
And now, Mr. President, if it were possible to overcome the insurmountable ob
stacles which lie in the way of immediate abolition, let us briefly contemplate some
ofthe consequences which would inevitably ensue. One of these has been oc
casionally alluded to in the progress of these remarks. It is the struggle which
would instantaneously arise between the two races in most of the Southern and
Southwestern States. And what a dreadful struggle would it not be ! Imbiltered
bj' all the recollections of the past, by ihe unconquerable prejudices which would
prevail between the two races, and stimulated by all the hopes and fears of the
future, it would be a contest in which the extermination ofthe blacks, or their as
cendency over the whites, \yould be the sole alternalive. Prior to the conclusion
or during the progress of such a contest, vast numbers, probably, sf the black race
would migrate into the free Stales ; and what effect would such a migration have
upon Ihi; laboring classes in those States 1
Now, the distribution of labor in the United States is geographical ; the free
laborers occupying one side of the line, and the slave laborers the other ; each
class pursuing its own avocations almost altogether unmixed with the other. But,
on the supposition of immediate abolition, the black class, migrating into the free
Slates, would enter into competition with the white class, diminishing the wages
of their labor, and augmenting the hardships of their condition.
This is not all. The abolitionists strenuously oppose all separation of the two
races. I confess to you, sir, that I have seen with regret, grief, and astonish
ment, their resolute opposition to the project of colonization. No scheme was
ever presented to the acceptance of man, which, whether it be entirely practica
ble or not, is characterized by more unmixed humanity and benevolence than that
of transporting, with their own consent, the free people of color in the United
States to the land of their ancestors. It has the powerful recommendation that
whatever it does is good ; and if it effects nothing, it inflicts no one evil or
mischief upon any portion of our society. There is no necessary hestilily be
tween the objects of colonization and abolition. Colonization deals only with the
free man of "color, and that with his own free voluntary consent. It has nothing
to do with slavery. It disturbs no man's property, seeks to impair no power in
the slave States, nor to atiribute any to the General Government. All its action
and all its ways and means are voluntary, depending upon the blessing of Provi-

14
dience, which hitherto has graciously smiled upon it. And yet, beneficent and
harmless as colonization is, no portion of the people of the United States de
nounces it with so much persevering zeal and such unmixed bitterness as do the
abolitionists. They put themselves in direct opposition to any separation whatever between
the two races. They would keep them forever pent up together within the same
limits, perpetuating their animosities, and constantly endangering the peace ofthe
community. They proclaim, indeed, that color is nothing; that the organic and
characteristic differences between the two races ought to be entirely overlooked
and disregarded. And, elevating themselves to a sublime but impracticable phi
losophy, they would teach us to eradicate ail the repugnances of our nature, and
to, take to our bosoms and our boards the black man as we do the white, on the
same footing of equal social condition. Do they not perceive that in thus con
founding all the distinctions which God himself has made, they arraign the wisdom
and goodness of Providence itself? It. has been His divine pleasure to make the
black man black and the white man white, and to distinguish them by other re
pulsive constitutional differences. It is not necessary for me to maintain, nor
shall I endeavor to prove, that "it was any part of His divine intention that the
one race should be held in perpetual bondage by the other ; but this I will say,
that those whom he has created different, and has declared, by their physical struc
ture and color, ought to be kept asunder, should not be brought together by any
process whatever of unnatural amalgamation.
But if the dangers ofthe civil contest which I have supposed, could be avoided,
separation or amalgamation is the only peaceful alternalive, if it were possible to
effectuate the project of abqlition. The abolitionists oppose all colonization, and
it irresistibly follows, whatever they may protest or declare, that they are in favor
of amalgamation. And who are to bring about this amalgamation? I have heard
of none of these ultra-abolitionists furnishing in their own families or persons ex
amples of intermarriage! Who is to begin it? Is it their purpose not only to
create a pinching competition between black labor and white labor, but do they
intend also to contaminate the industrious and laborious classes of society at the
North by a revolting admixture ofthe black element ?
It is frequently asked, What is to become ofthe African race among us? Are
they forever to remain in bondage ? That question was asked more than half a
century agp. It has been answered by fifty years of prosperity but little chequered
from this cause. It will be repeated fifty or a hundred years hence. The true
answer is, that the same Providence who has hitherto guided and governed us, and
averted all serious evils from the existing relation between the two races, will
guide and govern our posterity. Sufficient to the day is the evil thereof. We
have hitherto, with thdt blessing, taken care of ourselves. Posterity will find the
means of its own preservation and prosperity. It is only in the most direful event
which can befall this people that this great interest, and all other of our greatest
interests, would be put in jeopardy. Althaugh in particular districts the black
population is gaining upon the white, it only constitutes one fifth of the whole
population of the United States. And, taking the aggregates of the two races, the
European is constantly, though slowly, gaining upon the African portion. This
fact is demonstrated by the periodical returns of our population. Let us cease,
then, to indulge in gloomy forebodings about the impenetrable future. But, if we
may attempt to lift the veil, and contemplate what lies beyond it, I,, too, have, ven
tured on a speculative theory, with which I will not now trouble you, but which has
been published to the world.. According to th'at, in the progress of time, some one
hundred and fifty or two hundred years hence, but few vestiges of the black race
will remain among our posterity.
Mr. President, at the period ofthe formation of our constitution, and afterwards.

15
ocean from those which found their outlet in the Gulf of Mexico. They seemed
to present a natural separation. That danger has vanished before the noble
achievements of the spirit of internal improvement, and the immortal genius of
Fulton. And now, nowhere is found a more loyal attachment to the Union than
among those very Western people, who, it was apprehended, would be the first to
burst its ties.
The other cause, domestic slaverj', happily the sole remaining cause which is
likely to disturb our harmony, continues to exist. It was this which created the
greatest obstacle and thQ most anxious solicitude in the deliberations of the con
vention that adopted the general Constitution. And it is this subject that has
ever been regarded with the deepest anxiety by all who are sincerely desirous of
the permanency of our Union. The Father of his Country, in his last affecting
and solemn "appeal to his fellow-citizens, deprecated, as a most calamitous event,
I the geographical divisions which it might produce. The convention wisely left to
^le several States the power over the institution of slavery, as a power not neces
sary to the plan of union which it devised, and as one with which the General
Government could not be invested without planting the seeds of certain destruc
tion. There let it remain, undisturbed by any unhallowed hand.
Sir, I am not in the habit of speaking lightly of the possibility of dissolving
this happy Union. The Senate knows that I have deprecated allusions, on ordi
nary occasions, to that direful event. The country will testify tliat, if there be
any thing in the history of my public career worthy of recollection, it is the truth
and sincerity of my ardent devotion to its lasting preservation. But we should be
false in ohr allegiance to it, if we did not discriminate between the imaginary and
real dangers by which it may be assailed. Abolition should no longer be regard
ed as an imaginary danger. The abolitionists, let me suppose, succeed in their
present aim of uniting the inhabitants of the free States, as one man, against the
inhabitants of the slave States. Union on the one side will beget union on the
other. And this process of reciprocal consolidation will be attended with all the
violent prejudices, imbiltered passions, and implacable animosities, whichever de
graded or deformed human nature. A virtual dissolution of the Union will have
taken place, whilst the forms of its existence remain. The most valuable element
of union — mutual kindness, the feelings of sympathy, the fraternal bonds which
now happily unite us — will have been extinguished forever. One section will stand
in menacing and hostile array against the other. The collision of opinion will be
quickly followed by the clash of arms. I will not attempt to describe scenes
which now happily lie concealed from our view. Abolitionists themselves would
shrink back in dismay and horror at the contemplation of desokled fields, con
flagrated cities, murdered inhabitants, and the overthrow of the fairest fabric of
human government that ever rose to animate the hopes of civilized man. Nor
should these abolitionists flatter themselves that, if they can succeed in their ob
ject of uniting the people of the free States, they will enter the contest with a nu
merical superiority that must insure victory. All history and experience proves
the hazard and uncertainty of war. And we are admonished by Holy Writ that
the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. But if they were to con
quer, whom would they conquer? A foreign foe — one who had insulted our flag,
invaded our shores, and laid our country waste ? No, sir ; no, sir. It would be
a conquest without laurels, without glory — a self, a suicidal conquest — a conquest
of brothers over brothers, achieved by one over another portion of the descend
ants of our common ancestors, who, nobly pledging their lives, their fortunes, and
their sacred honor, had fought and bled, side by side, in many a hard battle on
land and ocean, severed our country from the British Crown, and established our
nntional independence.
Thfi inhabitants nf ihe slave States are sometimes accused bv their Northern

16
be a reversal of oonditions. Let me' suppose that'the people of the sla-ve State
were to form societies, subsidize presses, make large pecuniary contributions, sen
forth numerous missionaries througho.ut all theirown bordersjand enter into raachina
tions to burn the beautiful capitals, destroy the productive manufactories, and sini
in the ocean the gallant ships of tile Northern States. Would these incendiar
proce^^gs be regarded as neighborly and friendly, and consistent with the fra
ternal sentiments which should ever be clierished by one portion of the Union to
, wards another? Would they excite no emotion ? Occasion no manifestations o
dissatisfaction, nor lead -to any acts of retaliatory violence ? But the supposet
case falls far short of the actual one in a most essential circumstance. In no con
tingency could th'ese capitals, munufactories, and ships, rise in rebellion and mas'
sacre inhabitants of the Northern Slates.
' I am, Mr. President, no friend of slavery. The Searcher of all Hparts know:
that every pulsation of mine beats high and strong in tSe cause of civil liberty
Wherever it is safe and practicable, I desire to see every portion' of the humar
family in the enjoyment of it. IJut I prefer the liberty of my own country to that ol
any other people ; and the liberty of ray own race to that of any other race.
The liberty of the descendants of Africa in the United Stales is incompatible with
the safety and liberty of the European descendants. Their slavery fornis an ex
ception — an exception resulting from a slern and inexorable necessity —
to the general Hbetty in the United Stales. We did not originate, nor are we
responsible for, Ihis necessity. Their liberty, if it were possible, could only be
established by violating the incontestable powers of the States, and subverting the
Union; and beneath the ruins of the Union would be buried, sooner or later, the
liberty of both races.
But if one dark spot exists on our political horizon, is it not obscured by the
bright and effulgent and cheering light that beams all around us? Was ever
a people before so blessed as we are, if true to ourselves? Did ever any other
nation contain within its bosom so many elements of prosperity, of greatness, and
of glory ? Our only real danger lies ahead, conspicuous, elevated, and visible.
It was clearly discerned at the commencemeul, and distinctly seen throughout our
whole career. Shall we wantonly run upon it, and destroy all the glorious antici
pations ofthe high destiny that awaits us? I beseech the abolitionists themselves
solemnly to pause in their mad and fatal course.. Amidst the infinite variety of
objects of humanity and benevolence, which invite the employment of their ener
gies, let them select some one more harmless, that does not threaten to deluge our
country in blood. I call upon that small portion of the clergy which has lent it
self lo these wild and ruinous schemes not to forget the holy nature of the Divine
mission of the Founder of our Religion, and to profit by his peaceful examples.
I entreat that portion of my countrywomen who have given their countenance to
abolition to remember that they are evermost loved and honored when moving in
their own appropriate and delightful sphere; and to reflect that the ink which they
shed in subscribing with their fafir hands abolition petitions may prove but the pre
lude lo the shedding of the blood of their brethren. I adjure all the inhabitants
of the free States to rebuke and discountenance, by their opinion and their exam
ple, measures which must inevitably lead lo the most calamitous consequences.
And let us all, as countrymen, as friends, and as brothers, cherish in unfading
memory the motto which bore our ancestors triumphantly through all the trials of
the Revolution, as, if adhered to, it will conduct their posterity through all that
may, in the dispensations of Providence, be reserved for them.

YALE UNIVERSITY

a39002 003020535b