Connectictit Geiieral assembly
Joint Standing committee on foderal relations,
. Report
1849

for the fouruiing of a. College. iflriMn Selenj/t^

" ILKIBIg^IEir °

/

REPORT

COMMITTEE ON FEDERAL RELATIONS,

RESOLUTIONS

SOUTH CAROLINA, VIRGINIA, MISSOURI, &c.

PRINTED BY OBDEK OF THE HOUSE.

HARTFORD :
WILLIAM H. BURLEIGH,
PRINTER TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
1849.

The Joint Standing Committee on Federal Relations to
whom was referred certain resolutions of the States of Vir
ginia, South Carolina and Missouri, having taken them into
consideration, appointed Mr. J. D. Baldwin, of said Com
mittee, to draft a report on the same, which, together with
the accompanying resolutions, are hereby reported to the
House. Per order of the Committee,
J. DIXON, Chairman.
General Assembly, )
?-5

May Session, 1849.

r,^

aios

REPORT.

The Joint Committee on Federal Relations, to whom were
referred certain resolutions of the States of Virginia, South
Carolina, and Missouri, relating to Slaveiy, respectfully
report :
That they have bestowed on these resolutions the careful
consideration which seemed demanded by the source from
which they emanated, as well as by the importance of the
subject to which they refer. Your Committee do not forget,
that the acts or solemn declarations of a sovereign state,
touching the general interests of the Confederacy, or the
harmonious action of its different members, is entitled to the
most respectful consideration from its co-states.
The resolutions in question all assume that Congress has
no power to legislate on the subject of Slavery, either in the
Territories of the United States or* in the District of Colum
bia, and that any act of the Federal Legislature, implying
such power, would be a violation of the Constitution, and an
infringement of the rights of the Slaveholding States. Their
tone is somewhat vehement, and it is declared, that such
action of Congress must be resisted " at any and every haz
ard.!' When these resolves were passed, it was known
that a majority of the States had asserted the power and the
duty of Congress to exclude Slavery from the Territories.
Among others, the General Assembly of Connecticut took
this position in 1847.
Your Committee have given some attention to this ques
tion, and although they do not propose to go at length into
the argument, they will give some reasons for their views of
the matter. In our view, Congress certainly has power to
exclude Slavery from the Territories, and to abolish it at the
seat of Government ; and this is not an implied power, not a
power derived under that article of the Constitution, which

confers on Congress authority to pass all laws, necessary and
proper, to carry into effect the specific grants of power which
the Constitution contains.
It appears to us that this question is very simple. It lies
in a very narrow space. There is but one article in the
Constitution relating to the jurisdiction of Congress, over the
District of Columbia, and one only which relates to the
power of Congress in the Territories. The first provides
that Congress shall have power " to exercise exclusive legis
lation in all cases whatsoever over such District as may, by
cession of particular States and the acceptance of Congress,
become the seat of the Government of the United States."
If language stronger than this can be used, to confer on Con
gress plenary and unrestricted power of legislation over
every subject touching the rights of person and property, we
cannot conceive what it is. The provision relating to Terri
tories is as follows : — '" Congress shall have power to dispose
of, and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the
territory and other property belonging to the United States."
"Rules and regulations" to be made or prescribed by Con
gress, must have the authority of laws. By this clause in
the Constitution, it certainly was intended that Congress
should be to the Territories something more th^n an agent
to survey and sell the public lands. The import of the lan
guage is much more comprehensive. The meaning is, that
Congress shall have authority to legislate for the Territories
and provide for their government. Any other construction is
inconsistent with the object which the Convention must have
had in contemplation. Did not the Convention foresee that
the territory was to be settled .'' Will it be contended that
the setdement of the territory, together with the establish
ment of temporary governments, and, ultimately, their ad
mission as States into the Union, was not then had in con
templation .'' This would impeach the intelligence of those
enlightened men, and it is wholly inconsistent with the his
tory of that period. The settlement and temporary govern
ment of the North- West Territory, with a view to its admission

into the Union as States, had for years previous to this period
been the subject of much discussion in the Congress under
the Confederation. In 1784, Mr. Jefferson prepared a plan
for the government of that Territory, containing, substantially,
the ordinance adopted in 1787. The provision relating to
Slavery was adopted by the Convention, in August, 1787,
and, on the 13th of July previous, the Congress, which was
in session at the same time with the Convention, enacted the
celebrated ordinance relating to the NorthTWest Territory.
It cannot be supposed that the Convention was ignorant of
what the Congress had done. The Convention, therefore,
must have contemplated objects of higher importance than
the mere survey and sale of the public land. It looked to
the settlement of the territory, the establishment of territo
rial Governments, and the ultimate erection of new States.
The article authorizing Congress to admit new States into the
Union, must have had reference, primarily, to the North-
West Territory. It is true, that the ordinance of 1787 pro
vided, in part, for the temporary government of that Territory,
yet, it was indispensible that Congress should have power
to supply such rules and regulations as the ordinance did not
contain, and which could not then be foreseen.
Thus there is no ground for reasonable doubt, that the
clause, " make all needful rules and regulations respecting
the territory," conferred the power to govern the territory,
subject only to the restrictions in the ordinance, and the con
ditions prescribed in the cessions of the territory by the
States. If there could have been a doubt on this subject
originally, your Committee cannot well conceive how any
doubt can exist at the present time. This provision of the
Constitution received an early and cotemporaneous construc
tion, in conformity with what is here maintained, by every
department of the Government — Congress, the Executive,
and the Judiciary.
In the case of the Cherokee. Nation against the State of
Georgia, the Supreme Court declared, that " the power given
in this clause is of the most plenary kind. Rules and regu-

6
lations respecting the Territories of the United States ! They
necessarily confer complete jurisdiction.' It was necessary
to confer it, without llmita.tlon, to enable the new Govern
ment to redeem the pledges given to the old, in relation to
the formation and powers of the new States." This pro
vision of the Constitution has been construed in the same
manner, by that Court, in other cases.
At the very first session of Congress, an act was passed
confirming the ordinance of 1787, and in that case. Congress
must have acted under authority from this provision in the
Constitution, as there is no other to authorize such action.
In 1798, an act was passed, establishing the Mississippi Ter
ritory. In 1801, Congress divided the territory North-West
of the Ohio, and established the Territory of Indiana, with a
government according entirely with the ordinance of 1787.
In 1803, it vested in the Executive certain powers of Govern
ment over the newly acquired country of Louisiana, and in
1804 it divided Louisiana into two territories, over which
temporary Governments were established. This act not
only asserted jurisdiction over the Territories, but also con
tained direct and Important provisions in relation to Slavery.
It prohibited the importation of slaves Into those Territories,
from any place without the limits of the United States, and
from any place within the limits of the United States, if the
slaves had been imported into the country since the first of
May, 1798. It also prohibited the importation of slaves of
any description, or from any place, except by a " citizen of
the United States removing into said territory for actual set
tlement, and being at the time of said removal the honajide
owner of such slaves." This act was limited to one year.
But, the following year, an act was passed continuing it in
force until repealed. The act of 1798, establishing the Mis
sissippi Territory, contained a prohibition against the import
ation of slaves from anyplace beyond the limits of the United
States ; and let it be carefully noticed that these prohibitions
were enacted several years before Congress had authority to
prohibit the foreign slave trade, with respect' to the States.

It does not seem to us necessary to trace the whole history
of the legislation of Congress over the Territories. It is suffi
cient that the power in question exists, and, as occasion re
quired, has been exercised, from the first Congress, which
confirmed the ordinance of 1787, to the last Congress, which
applied the principles of this ordinance to the Territory of
Oregon, and has been directly sanctioned by almost every
administration, from that of Washington to that of James K.
Polk. And many of the acts of Congress, asserting this
power over the Territories, received the sanction of some of
the very men who were most conspicuous in framing the
Constitution. A position so extraordinary as that which denies the power
of Congress to legislate on the subject of slavery in the Ter
ritories, would not deserve a serious refutation, if it were not
assumed by sovereign States. The positions taken and the
language used, in the resolutions referred to your Commit
tee, are very surprising. If the power of Congress over the
Territories is not now settled beyond reasonable doubt, no
thing can be considered as settled under the Constitution. In
our view, it would be no more unreasonable to deny the
power of Congress to enact a revenue law.
These resdlutlons assume that an act of Congress, exclu
ding slavery from the Territories, or abolishing It in the Dis
trict of Columbia, would violate the compromises of the
Constitution. This phrase, the compromises of the Consti
tution, is often used in a very indefinite sense, and without
any regard to the real compromises which the Constitution
contains, on the subject of Slavery. What have the compro
mises to do with the question of Slavery in the Territories,
or in the District of Columbia .'' They all relate to Slavery,
as it originally existed in the States, and show how it was
provided that the old Slaveholding States might enter the
confederacy, without giving tjie General Government juris
diction over this subject within their limits.
It is also maintained, that the Constitution recognizes and

8
sanctions Slavery, where it Is not prohibited by local legisla
tion. This is a serious misconception. The Constitution
certainly recognizes the fact that Slavery originally existed
by the laws of certain States, and It could not be otherwise,
as it was necessary to make certain provisions for this fact.
But the Constitution does not sanction slavery, nor, in any
respect, recognize it as existing by its authority. The pro
visions relating to it would instantly cease to operate, if it
should be abolished by the States under whose authority it
exists. Your Committee do entirely believe the doctrine, that
Congress has no more power " to make a slave than to make
a monarch," and they earnestly protest against any repre
sentation, that slavery does or can exist by authority of the
Federal Constitution. Such a representation is directly con
trary to the fact. It robs the Federal institutions of their
highest honor, that of being founded on the natural rights of
man. It flilslfies the preamble of the Constitution, which
declares that its object was to " establish justice, and to se
cure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
The position, that the Federal Constitution recognizes and
upholds Slavery, makes this " peculiar institution " thc su
preme law of the land. In such case, the enlargement of our
territorial limits, instead of expanding the boundaries of
freedom, merely extends the area of oppression, and the flag
of our Union, in the New Territories, instead of being the
ensign of liberty, becomes the badge of the violated rights of
humanity. If this position is true, we should renounce the
doctrine of our national fathers, that " all men are created
equal and endowed with certain Inalienable rights," and that
all rightful governments are established bythe consent of the
governed, and based upon the natural rights of man, among
which are " life, liberty, and the pursult.of happiness." But
this extraordinary assumption has no support in the Consti
tution. Morepver, it Is a libel orj the reputation of our fathers,
to maintain that, in establishing this Republic, they incorpo
rated slavery as one of its elements.

These resolutions and the discussions generally, in the
(luarter from which they come, appear to make no distinction
between Slavery in the States, and Slavery In the Territo
ries and the District of Columbia. Slavery, they say, Is a
local institution, and the Federal Government, being estab
lished for general national objects, has no right to interfere
wilh it. We concede that it is a local Institution, deriving its
whole sanction from local laws, and we maintain that Con
gress has [)ower over it, wherever it exorcises local jurisdic
tion. In the Territories and the District, Congress Is the
local legislature, which must decide all questions touching the
rights of persons and property, and, among others, that of
Slavery. If Congress has not power over Slavery in the
Territories and in the District, then such power does not ex
ist, for there is no other body in existence by which It can be
claimed. Willie your Committee entertain no doubt of the power of
Congress to legislate concerning domestic Slavery in the Ter
ritories and in the District of Columbia, they have just as
little doubt, that it is reasonable, just, and proper, to exercise
this power. We regard it as one of the most solemn
and pressing duties of Congress to prevent Slavery from
[>assing beyond its present limits, ami to put an end to it,
wherever its existence is a national crime.
To proiilbit Slavery in the Territories, may not encourage
that class of capitalists, who, from the peculiar nature of
their investments, are called .^hnr/ioIJcrs, but we can see no
reason why the legislation of Congress should be specially
directed to their encouragement. Our Government was not
intended to trample on the rights of man, or ofTcr premiums
fbr oppiH'ssioM ; and there are, we lielieve, no compromises
of the Coflstitution, which impose on Congress the obligation
to acquire new territories, and furnish new markets, for the
special encouragement of Slavery and the Slave trade.
It is saiil that if Slavery is excluded from the new Terri
tories, the citizens of Slaveholding States will be defrauded
of all benefit from them. If this were true, it would be no

10
reason against the exclusion, for, to admit Slavery would be
equally injurious to the citizens of the free State*, who will
not generally emigrate to a region where Slavery exists. But
the point urged in this objection is not true. The slavehold
ers in the Southern States do not constitute the whole South.
The great majority of the white citizens of the Slaveholding
States are not slaveholders, and have no interest in Slavery ;
and many who own slaves, would rejoice to escape from this
institution, and live where they may enjoy all the institutions
of Freedom In a Southern climate.
But it is claimed, that, if slaveholders cannot emigrate to
the Territories and take their property with them, including
slaves, they are deprived of an equality with others. This is
an entire niistake. It rests on the assumption, that whatso
ever is made property by the laws of a State, must be recog
nized and protected as property in a Territory , whereas the
rights of property depend on local laws, and, in deciding that
question in a Territory, Congress must have regard to the
interests of the Territory and ,of the whole Union, and not
merely to the rights created by local laws. The rights of
property are different in the several States, so that it would
be impossible to establish in a Territory what would be pe
culiar to every State. The rights of property in Slaves, which
exists in some of the States, are not the only rights of prop
erty which depend entirely on State laws, and which could
not be enjoyed In a Territory. Corporate rights, and the in
terests created by special and peculiar legislation, cannot go
with the emigrant from a State into a Territory of the
Union. The claim that Congress is bound to uphold and protect
in a Territory every species of property which the citizens
of any State may possess, under its laws, is only a claim that
it is the Constitutional obligation of Congress to transfer the
laws of the State to the Territory. And if any such obliga
tion exists, it must extend to all the States, so that Congress,
in such a case, is bound, to undertake the absurdity of trans-

11
ferring to each territory the peculiar laws of all the States,
however opposite and conflicting.
Have the Slave-holding States any reason to complain of
the action of the government, In the acquisition of territory .''
It has so happened that, previously to late sessions of New
Mexico and California, all we have acquired was situated
south and west of the original Slave States, and, when
ceded, was subject to Slavery, which has been abolished
only in the most northern portion of Louisiana. The vast Ter
ritoVy of Louisiana, together with Florida and Texas, brought
slavery with them into the Union. Of the present Slave
States, five were organized out of acquired territory, and one
of them, Texas, with an eixtent sufficient for three or four
additional States, the formation of which is provided for in
the resolutions of annexation.
Meanwhile, but one free State has been added to the Union
from -acquired territory. H^s not the policy of the Govern
ment been remarkably liberal towards the slaveholding
States .'' — or, rather, has it not been regardless of the best in
terests of the whole Union ; regardless of what Is due to
liberty and humanity, in thus enlarging the domain of
Slavery .''
The whole history of the formation of the Federal Consti
tution, proves that the men who framed It, did not contem
plate the further extension of Slavery, or the admission into
the Union of more Slave States. It is clear that tbe Conven
tion regarded Slavery as a temporary institution, and had in
view its final extinguishment in all the States. The only
power granted to Congress, touching the expansion of Slavery
in the States, was that relating to the foreign slave-trade, and
this was a power, not to extend, but to restrain. Mr. Mason,
of Virginia, in his speech on this article, said, " he deemed it
essential, in every point of view, that Congress should pos
sess power to restrain the increase of Slavery." Is it not
time to return to the original policy of the government .-*
The Committee can see no injustice to any State or to any
citizen of the Union, in applying the ordinance of 1787, to

12
the present territories of the United States. And, if Con
gress has power to apply this ordinance, and if it violates no
right, should it not be adopted .' Ib is demanded by the in
terest and honor of the whole Union. It is due to our love
pf liberty, and to our position among the nations of the earth.
Is it not time to wipe away the reproach, too justly cast upon
us, that, while boasting of freedom, we are engaged in spread
ing Slavery over this continent ?
We can not view this as a sectional question — a mere issue
between North and South, and we do extremely regret to see
a disposition to regard it in this light, and an attempt to make
it the basis of sectional combination, among slaveholders.
But, in these movements, we see nothing to startle us. There
is not the slightest reason to anticipate a crusade for the propa
gation of Slavery. It is true that the resolutions referred to
us, speak of resisting the Wilmot Proviso, " at all hazards,
and to the last extremity ;" but we doubt whether sufl&cient
care was used, in the choice of this expression. We can not
persuade ourselves that it was intended to mean anything
very definite, or, at least, anything very terrible. Being sat
isfied that the measure Is just, and that it invades no State
right, we cannot think that any State will really undertake
to resist it. The measure is to take effect, not in the slave-
holding States, but in the Territories, and we have not the
least apprehension, that either Virginia, South Carolina, or
Missouri, will undertake a war, to resist the action of Con
gress, and establish Slavery in California.
The most weighty reasons for prohibiting Slavery in the
Territories, are of universal application. They are as strong
at the South as at the North. If Slavery is a moral wrong,
the responsibility of its diffusion falls equally on every part
of the Union. If it is a very bad social and political organi
zation, then every portion of the confederacy is interested in
preventing its extension. If it tends to impoverish and weak
en a single State, it thus impairs the resources and power of
the whole country. If it is a hostile element, which disturbs
the harmonious action of our free Institutions, and, perhaps,

13
endangers the confederacy, every State, and every citizen,
who cherishes the Union, must have a common motive to re
sist the increase and expansion of an element threatening
such dangerous consequences. If to restrict Slavery wiU
advance freedom, and tend, to spread our free institutions
over this continent, is not this an object dear to our citizens,
Southern as well as Northern .''
Slavery opposes the progress of civilization. It is un
friendly to morals and religion. It discourages industry, de
presses enterprize, promotes ignorance, and debases human
life. It works like a pestilence in the communities where it
exists. It poisons the social body, and spreads blight, mil
dew and desolation ; and, this being its character, it would
seem that no enlightened statesman, no good and patriotic
citizen, no matter in what part of the Union he may reside,
can encourage the thought of transferring this barbarous in
stitution to the shores of the Pacific, there to be Incorporated
with the institutions of a great people, whose political exist
ence is now beginning.
The Committee has been induced to go into the considera--
tions here presented, in consequence of the ground assumed
by many slaveholding States, since the action of our General
Assembly, in 1847. It seemed proper to review the ground
we had taken. If our position is not tenable, we should,
like honorable men, acknowledge our errors and retrace our
steps. If it is correct, we should adhere to it and maintain
it, without compromise or evasion.
However strong may be the sentiments of the people of 1>his
State, against Slavery, and against every other system of op
pression, they will abide by the Constitution, and fulfill all its
obligations, in good faith. They cherish the Union, and do
not permit themselves to believe its dissolution possible.
But their love of liberty is not less than their' attachment to
the Union. Liberty is the distinguishing prerogative and
glory of our people, by which they are raised in the scale of
civilization above every other people on earth. It is the
grand element of our progress in all the resources of national

14
wealth and greatness. It Is a light and a power, by which,
we, as a people, must work for the welfare of the race. Re
garding Hberty as the highest interest of our country, we are
admonished to be vigilant and fearless in its defence. There
fore we are opposed to Slavery, and will never consent to its
extension. We will not cherish this barbarism of the past
ages. We will not smile our favors on tyrannies, however
assuming or venerable.
We are satisfied that the course pursued by the General
Assembly, in 1847, was both justifiable and necessary, and,
certainly, the question has lost none of its importance since
that time. Therefore, the Committee recommend, that this
Assembly maintain, with firmness, the position which the
State has already assumed. Accordingly, we report, with
some modifications, the rdsolutions referred to us, and recom
mend their adoption.
RESOLUTIONS.
1 General Assembly, >
May Session, 1849. 3
Whereas, His Excellency, the Governor, has submitted
to the consideration of this General Assembly, certain re
solves of the Legislatures of Virginia, South Carolina, and
Missouri, in which the power of Congress to legislate on the
subject of Slavery in the Territories of the United States and
in the District of Columbia, is explicitly and positively de
nied: And whereas, many persons, residing in the slaveholdino-
States, show a settled intention to force the establishment of
Slavery in the Territories of New Mexico and California,
and to perpetuate its existence in the District of Columbia :
And whereas, in the event of the admission of another
slave State into the Union, the slaveholding interest will pre
ponderate in the Federal Senate :
And whereas, during the last winter, Southern members of
Congress held a sectional convention in the chamber of the
Federal Senate, there, with closed doors, to calculate the
value of the Union after Slavery shall have been prohibited
in the Territories and aboUshed at the seat of the Federal
Government :

15
And whereas, in view of all these facts, we regard it as
the duty of each State in the Union, lo proclaim its opinions
on the momentous subjects in question, in the most public
and solemn manner, to the other members of the Confed
eracy, and to the world. Now, therefore.
Resolved, That Congress has full constitutional power, to
prohibit Slavery in the Territories of the United States, by
legislative enactment, and that it Is the duly of Congress to
pass, without unnecessary delay, such strict and positive laws,
as will effectually shut out Slavery from every portion of
the Territories of New Mexico and California.
Resolved, That the existence of Slavery and the Slave
Trade, in the District of Columbia, is a national disgrace
and crime, which Congress has full constitutional power to
remove, and that Congress should use this power, without
unnecessary delay ; or, if Slavery and the Slave Trade must
be continued In said District, that then the seat of the Fed
eral Government should be removed to some suitable locality,
where Slavery does not exist.
Resolved, That this General Assembly, for and in behalf
of the people of Connecticut, hereby publicly and solemnly
avow their determination to adhere to, and abide by, the
compromises contained in the Constitution of the United
States, relating to Slavery, to the letter, and in the spirit of
the same ; but that they will oppose, in all constitutional and
proper ways, any and every measure of compromise, by
which any portion of our free territory may be given up to
the encroachments of Slavery.
Resolved, That this General Assembly, for and in behalf
of the people of Connecticut, while solemnly declaring their
purpose to use every constitutional and proper effort lo resist
the extension of Slavery into the Territories, and to expel its
influence from the councils of the Federal Government, do as
solemnly avow their attachment to the Federal Union, and
their determination to stand by its integrity, at all hazards,
and/T the last moment.
/ lived. That, in accordance with the memorable advice
giv<, -) the American people, by the " father of his country,"
enjoining them to " frown indignantly on the first dawning of
every attempt to alienate any portion from the rest, or to en
feeble the sacred ties which now link together the various
parts," we hereby express our unqualified disapprobation of
the course pursued by certain members of the late Congress,
in assembling in the Senate Chamber at Washington, in a

16
secllonally organized convention, for purposes which, if suc
cessful, might lead to the dismemberment of the Union.
Resohed, That, in resisting the extension of Slavery, we
do not make a sectional issue, or oppose the iriterests of the
people of the South, inasmuch as a very large majority of
the while inh5.bilants of the slaveholding States, are non-
slaveholders, who need and should enjoy the privilege of em
igrating to the new Territories, without being followed by an
institution, which is every way hostile to Freedom, arid which
so effectually contributes to degrade the toil and debase the
life of the free laborer.
Resolved, That our Senators in Congress are hereby strict
ly instructed, and that our Representatives in Congress are
earnestly requested, to vote, in every stage of the question,
in favor of the incorporation of the fur\damental principles of
the Jeffersonlan ordinance of 1787, into any acts of Congreiss,
establishing Territorial governments over New Mexico and
California : to vote alvvays, and in every stage of the ques
tion, for thp abolition of Slavery and the Slave Trade in the
District of Columbia, or, in the alternativd, for thei removal
of the seat of Government to some locality in the Free
States : to vote always, and in every stage of the question,
against the admission of another slavehplding State into the
Federal Union.
Resolved, That the. Governor be requested to transmit a
copy of these Resolutions to the Governor of each State in
the Union, and also a copy to each of our Senators and Rep
resentatives in Congress.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 03066 1947