\

It

6T

6y\, K*vS. G>cxlclv^^H

I

SPEECH

OF

HON. R. S. BALDWIN, OE CONNECTICUT,

ON THE BILL TO ESTABLISH

A TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT IN OREGON.

DEUVERED

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JUNE 5, 1848.

WASHINGTON:
PRiNTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE.
1848.

SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIES.

The Bill to establish a Territorial Government in
Oregon being under consideration —
Mr. BALD'WIN said:
•Mr. President: In risings to address the Senate
on the question now under discussion, I do not
regard myself as the representative of any local or
sectional interest. I stand here as a Senator in
the Congress of the United Stales, in the perform
ance of a duty imposed by the Constitution, to
legislate for the whole country in such manner as
will best promote the common interest and welfare
of the people of the United States, as one people,
in providing for the governmentof a portion of our
national domain. It involves, in my judgment,
no question of State or individual right; but is
purely a question of national policy and justice.
It will be my endeavor to treat it as such, and
neither to indulge in, or give occasion for, crimi
nation or recrimination, in any remarks I may
deem it my duty to make.
The people of the Territory of Oregon having
established themselves on the public domain, with
out the assent of the Government of the United
States, to whom the jurisdiction pertains, had no
- inherent right of legislation which the United
States are bound either to recognize or confirm.
Their legislation was the offspring of necessity
alone; and their laws, while unconfirmed, can be
regarded aa obligatory only by the tribunals of
their own creation. They assert no claim to in
dependence, but entreat us to confer on them the
privileges of a lawful community, by the organiza-
¦ tion of a Territorial Government, Year after year
they have petitioned for this boon. And as during
all this period they have been left by the United
States without any system of government or laws
for their protection^ the Committee on Territories
' have, with great propriety, inserted in the bill the
provision to give validity to their past legislation,
which it is now proposed to erase.
The honorable Senators from Texas [Mr, Rusk]
and from Louisiana [Mr. Downs] have urged the
adoption of the amendment, on the ground that
there is no necessity for the section proposed to be
¦ erased, because without an express recognition of
their validity, the laws enacted by the superseded
¦ government would continue in force till repealed.
Xnd the honorable Senator from Texas also sup
poses that there is an implied recognition of their
validity in the fifteenth section of the bill. Both
of these propositions may well be doubted. 1 he
¦ ption of the Territorial Government proposed

by this bill supersedes the old system entirely. It
treats the existing government established by the
people of Oregon as a nullity. It contemplates no
transfer of jurisdiction. It is unlike the case of a
cession of territory received from an existing gov
ernment, whose validity is necessarily recognized
by the act, and whose laws continue until they are
repealed. Such would undoubtedly be the case,
in regard to the laws of New Mexico and Califor
nia, in the event of the ratification of the treaty
with Mexico.
But suppose it were true that the laws enacted
by the provisional government of the people of
Oregon would continue in force without this pro
vision, as the honorable Senator supposes — not by
their own inherent power, but by the acquiescence
and implied assent of this Government^what
harm would be done by the express recognition
contained in the section proposed to be erased.'
Why should we be unwilling to declare openly on
the face of the bill what we really intend.' Why
leave it to be implied, and expose our citizens to
the hazard of a doubtful construction, by rejecting
the clear and intelligible provision contained in the
bill as reported by the committee.' It. appears to
me, that under the circumstances in which the
people of Oregon have been placed, there is an
obvious propriety in the express recognition by
this Government of all their proper acts of past
.legislation. "The people of Oregon, convinced of the evils of
slavery, and aware of the advantages resulting
from its exclusion, as exhibited in the unexampled
growth and prosperity of the States composed of
the Northwestern Territory, have enacted what
they denominate a fundamental law, forever pro
hibiting involuntary servitude in the Territory.
This law, among others, would be confirmed by
the section proposed to be stricken from the bill.
The honorable Senator from South Carolina [Mr.
Calhoun] and the honorable Senator from Ala
bama [Mr. Bagbt] have announced to the Senate
the novel, and, to my mind, alarming doctrine,
that Congress has no power to legi-slate so as to
prevent a citizen of a slave State from emigrating
with his slave property to any of the Territories
of the United States, and there holding them in
servitude; that the people of the Territory have no
right so to legislate; and that Congress has no
power to vest such authority in the Territorial Le
gislature. This doctrine the honorable Senator
from South Carolina deduces from the equality of

the States in the Federal compact, from which he
infers that no discrimination can be made between
those who hold slaves and those who do not.
Sir, what have thp State governments to do with
this question .' 'What right of theirs is involved in
the legislation of Congress for the government of
the Territories of the nation .' The Constitution
of the United States was ordained and established
by the people of the United States. It was made
for and adopted by the people of the United States,
as one people, to enable them, by means of the
National Government thereby created, to exercise
in the manner prescribed the powers specifically
confided to that Government for the accomplish
ment ofthe great national purposes set forth in the
preamble to the Constitution.
Before the declaration of independence, the sev
eral States being mere colonial dependencies of the
British empire, the people of all the colonies owed
allegiance to the King. T^e same constitution
and the same common law were appealed to as the
source and guardian of their civil and political lib
erties. While yet owing this common allegiance, they
united to resist oppres.<!ion, and to demand redress
from their common sovereign. The Congress of
1776 was not composed of delegates from sovereign
States, but from colonial legislatures owing and
acknowledging allegiance to the British Crown,
They consequently had no authority, and could
have none, under such an appointment, to declare
a dissolution of the connection of the colonies with
Great Britain,
In making that ever-memorable declaration, they
did not, therefore, act as delegates of colonial legis
latures, but as representatives of the people of the
United States, then for the first time speaking as
" ONE people," and announcing their sovereignty
to the world. It was the unanimous declaration
ofthe thirteen United States of America, assuming
to speak as one people at the same moment that
they passed from the condition of colonies to that
of States. It was an authoritative declaration of
persons assuming a right to make it in the name
of the American people, that they no longer owed
allegiance to the British Crown,
That declaration, when ratified and sanctioned
hy the people in whose name it was made, had
the same force and effect as if previously autho
rized. It was the exercise by the American peo
ple, as a nation, of the highest attribute of sover
eignty, claiming a right to establish for themselves
an independent government. The declaration thus
put forth in the name of the whole was sustained
by common efforts and sacrifices, and confirmed
by a treaty which acknowledged their claim to an
equal rank among the nations of the earth. The
several colonial jurisdictions became, at the time
of the declaration of independence. Slates, with an
inherent power in the whole American people to
provide for their common welfare by a confederacy
of States or a constitutional government. They
chose the former, and failed in their experiment.
The Convention of 1787, which formed the Con
stitution of the United Slates, was composed of
delegates from the several Slates in their separate
political capacities. They were appointed, pursu
ant to a recommendation of Congress, " to revise,
amend, and alter the Articles of Confederation."
They had no power conferred upon them directly*

by the people, and consec|uently had no authority
in their name to organize a government which
should operate on individuals in any otheir way
than through the State legislatures. But the mem
bers of the Convention were convinced that the
system thfey were delegated to revise was wholly
inadequate to the exigencies of the country. The
experiment regarded with such intense interest by
the friends of liberty throughout the world was on
the verge of irretrievable ruin. The system of
legislating for States in their poUtical capacity had
been proved by experience to be wholly mefficient;
and it would have been so from the beginning,
had not the external pressure by the common
enemy kept them united for the purpose of de
fence. They were now divided among themselves,
distracted with jealousies industriously fomented
by aspiring demagogues, a prey to internal dissen
sion, without credit, and almost without respect of
foreign nations.
The wise men who composed that Convention
perceived, that unless a more perfect union could
be formed, it would be in vain to attempt to secure
for themselves and their posterity the blessings of
that liberty which it had so long been the object
of their united efforts to acquire. Assuming a re
sponsibility required by the occasion, they deter
mined to abandon the instructions under which
they were convened, and, in the name of "the
people of the United States," to form one nation
of the confederate Slates, with a constitutional
government, specifically invested by the people
with every power deemed needful for the accom
plishment of the great objects enumerated in the
preamble to the Constitution — a government to
which allegiance should be due from every citizen.
Now, as each individual, before the formation
of the Federal Constitution, owed allegiance only
to the State to which he belpnged, it was necessary
thatthe new government, which required, to a great
extent, the transfer of that allegiance to itself,
should be adopted, not only "by the people ofthe
United States," in whose name it was ordained,
but by the pepple of each of the States in their
separate political capacity.
It was not enough that it should be adopted by
a majority ofthe people of the United Slates, un
less it had likewise the assent of the people of
each particular Stale, since they alone, to whom
the sovereignty pertained within their particular
limits, had a right to transfer the exercise of such
of its attributes as the common welfare required,
to the Government of the Union.
It was competent for the people in the several
States, if they pleased, to unite in the adoption of
a constitution which should make them one nation
for all purposes, and entirely subvert the govern
ments of the several States. But this could only
be done legally by the people of each State in its
separate convention assembled with the consent of
the existing Government, Hence the necessity,
as well as the propriety from considerations of
convenience, of submitting to the people in their
State conventions for ratification, the constitution
which was ordained in the name of the people of
the United States,
The Constitution, when ratified, took effect ac
cording to the manner of its adoption by the Con
vention, as the act of the whole community upon
whom it was to operiite. All the people became

" citizens of the United States,"as well as citizens
of their respective States,
The President of the United States, Senators,
&c,,are required by the Constitution lo be " cit
izens of the United Slates;" and the crime of trea
son, which necessarily implies allegiance, is crea
ted and defined. The Government ofthe United
States having been adopted by a majority of the
people ofthe United States, and of each State, is,
to the extent of its powers, just as much the gov
ernment of the people of the United States in their
sovereign capacity, as the government of each
individual State is the government of its people,
, The object of both governments is the same: to
j exercise, in the name of the people, powers de-
. rived from the people for the protection and pres-
,' ervation of their rights and liberties. Neither
I government is sovereign or can exercise any power
whatever, except so far as it is intrusted by its
own people with the attributes of sovereignty, or
the exercise of legislative power. Neither can im
pose laws on ils citizens except by their consent.
1 When the Government of the United .States acts,
I it acts upon individuals as citizens of the United
States. When the Slate government acts, it acts
1 upon them only as citizens of a State.
; Whatever may have been the case before the
adoption of the Constitution, the people of each
Slate are not now sovereign within the limits of
the State. The Constitution of the United States
is paramount lo The constitution as well as to the
laws of the Slates. The people of the United
States have pijahibited the States from doing many
acts which, before the adoption of the Constitu
tion, they might lawfully have done. These are
limitations ofthe sovereignty ofthe people of the
several States, imposed and secured by the concur
rence ofthe people ofthe United States. It is not
the Governmentof the Uniled States that speaks in
these prohibitions. It is the people of the United
Slates. They are imposed not on the Legislatures
j of the States alone, but on the Slates themselves — on
the people of the States as organized communities.
Mr. BORLAND here put one or two interrog
atories to iMr. Baldv/in, respecting the positions
he had assumed.
Mr. BALDWIN replied, by reading from a
judicial opinion of the late Chief Justice Marshall,
as follows :
" The Government ofthe Union, then, is empliatically and
truly a Gr)vernment of tiie people! In furm iind suhstance
it emaniites from them. Its powers are granted by them,
and are to be exercised directly on them, and for tlieir hen-
em. * • * * * . * *
"If any one proposition could command the universal
assent of mankind, we might expect it would be this— that
the Government ofthe Union, thou.sh limited in its powers,
is supreme within its sphere of action. " * * * "Its
laws, when made in pursuance of the Constitution, form
the supreme law ofthe land."
Mr. BORLAND here stated that the Supreme
Court was a tribunal whose decisions were bind
ing upon the courts of the country, but not upon
the Legislature of the United Slates: nOr could
their decisions authoritatively define the powers
of this Government. Neither did he recognize the
authority of Chief Justice Marshall, the mere
opinion of a distinguished jurist, as worthy of
greater consideration on the constitutional powers
of Ihe Government than the opinions of Thomas
Jefferson and James Madison, which were direct--
ly opposed thereto.

Mr, BALDWIN, I must address myself, then,
to Senators who do acknowledge the authority of
that august tribunal, and of the eminent judge,
whose sole employment it was, through a long
and glorious life, to expound and elucidate the
Constitution and laws of his country,
" 111 discussing this question," says Cliicf Justice Mar-
.shall, 4 Wheaton, 402, " the counsel for the State of Mary
land have deemed it of some importance, in the construction
ofthe Constitution, to con.'-ider that instrument, not .is ema
nating from the people, but as the actof soveri'ign and inde
pendent States, The powers of the General Government,
it has been said, are delegated by the States, who alone are
truly sovereign, and must he exercised in subordination to
the States, who alone possess supreme dominion.
"It would be diiiicult to sustain this proposition. The
Convention which framed the Constitution was indeed elect
ed by tlie Slate Legislatures; but the instrument, when it
came from their hands, was a mere proposal, -without obli
gation or pretensions to it.
" It was reported lo the then existing Congress of the Uni
ted States, with a request that it might ' be submitted to a
' convention of delegates, chosen in eacii State by the people
'thereof, under theVecommcndationof its Legislature, for
' their assent and ratilicalion.' This mode of proceeding
was adopted, and by the Convention, by Congie=s, and by
the State Legislatures, the instrunjent was submitted to the
people." * * * " Whentheyact,theyactin theirStates;
hut the measures they adopt do not, on that account, cease
to be the measures ofthe people themselves, or become the
measures ofthe Slate Governments."
* * • "The assent of the States in their sovereign ca
pacity is implied in calling a Convention, and thus submit
ting that instrument to the people. But the people were at
perfect liberty lo accept or rejectit, and their act was final.
It required not the affirmance and could not be negatived by
the State Governments."
What, then, are the powers of Congress over
the Territories of the Uniied States? Has Con
gress power to prohibit or to authorize the prohibi
tion of human slavery in a Territory in which it
does not exist.' This power has been exercised
from the origin ofthe Government. It was exer
cised under the Confederation by the ordinance of
1787, with the assent of the delegates from every
Stale, And'almost immediately after the organi
zation of the Government under the present Con
stitution, an act was passed containirig the neces
sary provisions in order that the ordinance might
"continue lo have full effect," It was exercised
again in what is called the Missouri compromise,
ami in the organisation of the Territorial Govern
ments of Wisconsin and Iowa, For the source of
the power of Congress lo legislate for the govern
ment of the Territories, resort has commonly been
had to that clause in the Constitution which em
powers Congress " to dispose of and make all
needful rules and regulations respecting the terri
tory or other property of the United States,"
But I think it is also expressly conferred, as inci-
¦dent to the power of acquiring territory, by the
provision " that Congress shall have power to
' make all laws which shall be necessary and
' proper-for carrying into execution the foregoing
' powers, and all olher powers vested by this Con-
' stitution in the Government of the Uniled States,"
If the Constitution vests in the Government of
the United Slates the right to acquire the dominion
or sbvereignty over new territory which has not,
by becoming a Stale, acquired the means of self-
government, thereby creating the necessity for
legislation. Congress must pass the proper and ne-
ce.ssary laws to meet the exigency. It follows,
therefore, that Congress must judge what laws are
rfecessary and proper for the government of the

6

Territory, according to the spirit of the Constitu
tion, and most conducive to the general welfare
and interests of the people of the United States,
The Slates, as such, have no interest in the terri
tory acquired by' the nation to justify their inter
ference with its government. No citizen of a State
has a right to go there with or without his, prop
erty till Congress gives him the liberty. Congress
may, if it judge ft best, keep the territory wholly
unoccupied, as was proposed in regard to the ter
ritory between the Nueces and the Rio Grande, oi
it may dispose of the land to immigrants from
abroad, to free people of color, or to the Indian
tribes. If Congress deem it most promotive of the
general interest to provide for ils settlement as free
territory, excluding no one, but securing to every
inhabitant his personal liberty, whose rights, I
ask,, are violated?
¦When a citizen of South Carolina emigrates with
his Di-operty to settle in another State or Territory,
he ceases to be a citizen of the State which he has
abandpned, or to have a claim on her sovereignty
for his pioteet on. He goes upon the public ter
ritory as a citizen of the United States, and is en
titled lev the riffhts, privileges, and immunities of a
citizen of the United States, under the laws ofthe
Territory, and to nothing more.
If the citizen of South CaroUna eniigrates to a
slave State with his slaves, though he does not
carry with him the slave laws of South Carolina,
he carries with him what those laws regarded as
property, and which by the comity ofthe State lo
which he has come will, in accordance with their
own laws, continue to be so regarded. But the
condition of the slave there will bt governed, not
by the law of South Carolina, but by the laws of
the State into which his master has brought him
to reside,. If the citizen of South Carolina, instead
of going with his slave to a slave State, should take
liim to Massachusetts, h'e would there be regarded
as a freeman. Why? Because there is no slave
law there that recognizes the right of man to hold '
property in man; and the law of comity never pre
vails in favor of a law which violates the law of
our own country, or the law of nature. Yet if the
samecitizen had brought his horse to Massachu-.
setts, he would, of course, have remained his prop
erty still, because the horse, like any inanimate
property, is everywhere the subject of ownership.
If, on the other hand, the slave escape from South
Carolina, and come as a fugitive to a free State,
the master is authorized by the Constitution lo re
take him wherever he can find him, for the pur
pose of carrying him back to the State under whose
laws he was held lo service or labor.
But the Convention which formed the Federal
Constitution, though they recognized slavery as ex
isting in the States which tolerated it, in regard to
persons held lo labor by their laws, carefully ex-
cludc; from the Constitution every expression that
might be construed into an admission that there
could be property in man. Mr. Madison objected
to a clause as it was originally reported, dn the
ground " that it admitted that there could he prop
erty in men," an idea which " he thought it wrong
to admit into the Constitution," and it was altered
in conformity with his wishes.
What, then, is the property which a slave-owner
has in his slave? It is just that power which the
laws of the State or Territory in which he resides

confer. If those laws do hot recognize slavery as
there existing, it is nothing; for the laws of the
Stale he has left have ceased tb bperate. - In every
community in which the law of nature is un
controlled by positive law, all men are free ahd
equal in regard to their personal rights. Slavery
is a status contrary to the law of nature. It had its
origin in force, and can exist, as a legal' relation,
only by positive law. This is not the doctrine.'of
the free States alone; it has the sanction of the
highest judicial authority in the slave Statesj-as
Well as in the free. In a volume of reports by the
honorable Secretary of the Treasury (Walker's
Rep. 36) is contained the opinion of the Supreme
Court of Mississippi, that \
" Slavery is condemned by reason' and by 'the laws of I
nature. It existsj and can exist, only through municipal f
regulations." In the same volume, p. 83, it is said by the
court: : "In the Constitution of the Uniled States slaves are ex
pressly designated as persons. The , right of the master j
exists not by force ofthe law of nations or of nature, butby ,'
virtue only ofthe positive law of the State."
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana,
in a case reported in 14th of Martin, 404, say that
the relation of owner and slave in the States of this
Union, in which it has a legal existence, is a crea
ture of the municipal law.
The Supreme Court of Kentucky, also, in 3
Marshall, 470, say: •'
" Slavery is sanctioned by the laws of this State, but we I
'consider that as a right existing by a positive law of a inu- i
nicipal character, without foundation injhelaw of nature."
This, too, is the doctrine of the common law,
and fully sanctioned and sustained by the Supreme
Court of the United States.* Hence it was that
when the ordinance of 1787 declared that slavery
should not exist in the territory northwest of the
Ohio, all slaves then there, or afterwards brought
there by their masters, became free.
If the proposition of the honorable Senator from
South Carolina be true, it would follow that the
moment foreign territory is acquired by treaty or
otherwise, it becomes, eo instanli, slave territory,
having local laws lo sustain the unnatural relation
of owner and slave — laws which cannot be abro
gated while the territorial government shall endure,
I should like to know what sort of slave laws
would come into existence by virtue of the action
of the President and Senate in the formation Of a
treaty, or of the operation of the Constitution of
the United States, propria vigwe, on the territory
acquired. The property of the South Carolina
slaveholder is just that control over the life of
another which the laws of that State give him.
The property of a Delaware slaveholder being that
alone which the milder laws of Delaware confer,
is quite another thing. The offspring of the one
are slaves for life, while those ofthe other are but
servants for a time. Which of theseslavelawsare i
to spring into existence in iheTerritorres ofthe Uni- (
ted States? Or are the inhabitants and territorial !
authorities to be required to become skilled in Ihe
slave laws of all the States, so as to be able to admin
ister them in all their variety? No, sir. Unless a
slave law is enacted by Congress, or by the people
of the Territory, by their authority, the natural law

*For further illustration of these principles, see 13 Barn
well and Creswell's Reports, 448; 18 Picltering'a Eeports,
193; 16 Peters' Reports, 611; 3 Missouri, 270.

of liberty, as proclaimed by our fathers, will remain
in full force. And whoever removes there with his
slave, crfmes into a jurisdiction where no law exists
lo: retain him in servitude.
But, sir, if this be not universally conceded to
be the law, I would not leave it as a matter of
doubt, in the organization of a Territory now free.
Not only is there now no slave law existing in
Oregon, but the people have endeavored, by a fun
damental law, to- secure themselves against the
initroduction of slavery. Why should the people
of the United States desire to inflict it on them,
with all its attendant evils ? Will the people of
the United States be benefited by so doing ? Will
the people of Oregon be benefited? Senators who
opppse this prohibition admit that, in its practical
operation, no public interest will be prejudiced by
it. They say that slavery can never be profitably
introduced into Oregon, Then why not suffer the
prohibition to continue ? Other Senators entertain
a very different opinion. There is nothing invidious
in this prohibition. It is in accordance with a
policy universally approved at the organization of
the Government, and which has immortalized the
names of the authors of the ordinance of 1787,
The Territory is equally open to the immigration
of the free laborers of the southern as well as of the
northern States, The number of slaveholders, in
relation to the entire free population of the south
ern Slates, ^s coq^paratively small, A large pro
portion of the emigrants from the South are not
slaveholders. They go to avoid the evils of a
system which inevitably tends to the dishonor of
free labor, and to subject them and their families
to innumerable privations. To those who desire
to emigrate with their slaves, immense and fertile
regions are now open and unoccupied, far exceed
ing ih extent the territory which invites the settle
ment of the free laborer of the North and South,
AVe are here to legislate on this question as Amer
ican statesmen for the promotion of the common
welfare, 9.nd not of merely sectional interests. The
territories acquired by this Government beyond
the limits of theStates, must be as completely sub
ject to its jurisdiction, in all proper subjects of legis
lation,, as those of a State are to the jurisdiction of
the State government. The people of the Territo
ries have no constitutional rights, as such, until
they are extended to them by Congress, as they
are in l;he hU\ under consideration, and in every
act for the government of a Territory, It seems
preposterous to claim, then, that in a Territory be
yond the jurisdiction of any State, whose inhabit
ants have ceased to be the citizens of any State— a
Territory in which slavery has neverexisted, ils
exclusion, in accordance with the desire of us in-
¦ habitants, can be regarded as a violation of any
State or individual rights under the Constitution of
the United States, No citizen has any such inter
est in the common property of the Union as to ren
der it unjust for Congress to deny to him the right
of settling upon it with his slaves. If so, it would
be equally unjust to give power to the people to
exclude him, by their admission into the Union as
s! aState, so long as any portion of the soil within
its limits continued to be the property of the Uni
ted States, If it is competent for the State of Vir
ginia, Massachusetts, Connecticut, or New York,
to prohibit the continuance of slavefy within those
States respectively, it follows that there is nothing

in the nature of slave property which prevents it from
being theobjectof exclusion byanygovernmentex-
ercising the powers of sovereignty over the territory
ofthe United Slates, withoui the limits of a State,
The clause in the Constitution of the United States
providing for the surrender of fugitive slaves, im
plies the truth of the principle I have asserted. By
that article, slaves are regarded as persons from
whom service may be due, under the laws of the
Stales in which slave laws have force, and the right
to keep them there in servitude, by virtue of those
laws, is declared and secured. This right being
acknowledged to that extent only, it follows that
an escape by a slave, or his forcible abduction from
the State whose laws hold him in servitude, is re
garded as a violation of duty ; a wrongful act, which ,
consequently, does nut confer on him the right to
be regarded as a freeman in the Stale to which he
has fled, or been forcibly' carried, if his master de
sire to retake him for the purpose of subjecting him
again to servitude in the State from which he fled.
The same provision applies equally to the relation
of master and apprentice for a lime. The provision
in the Constitution is founded on a principle some
what analogous to that which provides for the sur
render of fugitives from justice. It gives extra
territorial force to the local law just so far as is
necessary to prevent the fugitive from gaining hia
liberty, by what the law of his domicil regards as
a wrongful act. But it has been invariably decided,
that if the owner of a slave voluntarily takes him
into a State where no law exists to impair the nat
ural equality of rights, the slave is free.
Mr. BERRIEN. Suppose he is shipped on board
of a vessel bound from one slave State to another
on the high seas ?
Mr. BALDWIN. On that question I may per
haps diflTer in opinion from some Senators whose
views on this subject are generally coincident with
my own. In my judgment he ought to be free. If
negroes, originally belonging to the State of Mary
land, or Virginia, are shipped as merchandise on'
board of a vessel to be transported on the high seas
to a southern market for sale, by virtue of what
law, I ask, are they holden as property, while
sailing under the flag of the United States, without
the territorial limits of either of those Stales ? Does
the vessel carry with her any portion of the sover
eignty of the State of Maryland or Virginia ? If
those States had been separate and independent
sovereignties, like Spain or France, the laws of the
State under whose flag they were saiUng would
have determined the personal relations of the indi
viduals on board. The vessel, while on the high
seas, would have been regarded, with all on board,
as still under the jurisdiction ofthe State to which
she belonged. But under the Constitution of the
United States, the sovereignty ofthe several States
is confined to their territorial limits. The jurisdic
tion over our vessels at sea is national. Commerce
and navigation by sea are subject to the exclusive
regulation of Congress, Our vessels are vessels
not of a particular State, but of the United States,
whose flag they bear; and offences committed on
board of them at sea are offences against the sov
ereignty of the United States. The slave laws of
Maryland and Virginia, therefore, could have no
force of themselves on board a vessel on the high
seas, any more than they would have in the terri
tory of Iowa over a slave who had been voluntarily

8

sent there by his master. The Constitution of
the United States confers no power on the Govern
ment to establish or regulate the institution of sla
very. It forms no part of the duty of the Govern
ment, in the exercise of its power " to regulate
co^nmerce among the several Stales," to protect
or recognize as legitimate commerce the traffic in,
and transportation of, slaves by sea as merchan
dise. But as Congress have in fact passed a law
to regulate the coastwise transportation of slaves,
it has been supposed that during their passage
on shipboard, their former legal relation would
continue. Sir, I cannot regard this as a merely local ques
tion, affecting the people of Oregon alone. It is a
great question of national policy, involving respon
sibilities and consequences affecting the whole
American people, and fixing for all future time the
destinies of our immense territorial acquisitions
bordering on the Pacific, We have not acquired
this territory for the mere purpose of giving room
for the expansion of our population. We have
room enough already, and to spare, for generations
yet unborn. It is regarded as an object of national
interest from its position, its capabilities of sustain
ing a vigorous and industrious population, and of
opening to our enterprising citizens new avenues
to the trade and commerce of the world. It belongs
to the nation — to the people of the United States,
as an organized community. It is for us, acting
as their representatives, discarding our sectional
feelings, and regarding it as a national question, 'to
judge of what will most conduce to the welfare of
the whole people, and now, while the territory is
all free, to decide, for all time tq come, whether it
will promote the common weal, and be in accord
ance with the spirit of our institutions, to plant
slavery there or to exclude it.
Who that bears in mind the countless blessings
that have been, and are now, enjoyed by the great
Stales, whose unexampled prosperity has filled the
once Northwestern Territory with a prosperous
and happy people, and %ed so much to the wealth
and to the strength and glory of this Republic, in
consequence of the exclusion of slavery by the

ordinance of 1787, can wish to deprive the people
of Oregon of the opportunity of imitating this
glorious example? 'Have we not a common in- '
terest in whatever will promote the prosperity and
add to the strength of our possessions on the bor- ^
ders ofthe Pacific? Will it aid us in the perform
ance of our common duty of defending them
against foreign aggression, to- introduce what Mr.
Madison* (leclared to be "an element of imbecil
ity" in their midst? Would it -not tend to in
crease, as it has done elsewhere, the danger of
war with the surrounding Indian tribes, as well as
with the jDeople of the adjoining territories? And
if so^— which would seem to be quite apparent-
have we really a duty imposed upon us by the
Constitution, to extend and sustain the institution
of slavery from the shores of the Atlantic lo the
Pacific Ocean? Is that the guarantee which ia
found in the Constitution? No, sir; it is our duty
to exercise the powers conferred by the Constitu
tion for the promotion of the greatest good of the!
people of the United Slates, in harmony with those
great principles of human right and liberty, which „
this whole people, as a people, have united to de
clare and establish. Those principles can never .
authorize Congress to create slavery, ox any other
institution founded in violation of the laws of na
ture, nor to disturb the compromises of the Con
stitution by laying the foundation for the establish-' '
ment, in the free Territories of tbd Unisn, of new ;
States, to be admitted with a slave representation
to increase the inequalities already existing.

* Mr, Madison, in a speech in the Congress of 17fc9, on the
abolition of the slave trade, thus expressed himself;
" I would venture to say, it is as much for the interests of
' Georgia and South Carolina as of any State in the Union.
' Every addition they receive to the number of their fclavjjs ^
f tends to weaken them, and renders them less capable of ,
'defence. In case of hosiilities with foreign nations, they >
< will be tile means of inviting attack, instead of repelling '
' invasion. It is a necessary duty of the General GovernT
* ment to protect every part of the empire agsiinst danger, as
'well internal as external. Everything, therefore, which
' tends to increase this danger, (hough it may be a local af-
* fair, yet if it involve national expense or sajet-y, it bec(jmes
' of concern to every part of the Union, and is a proper sul>-
' ject for the consideration of those charged with the general
' administration of the government."

3 9002 08937 3816

i I ii.?K rear « '

- •' #M'f^

J, J >W/lt?»

f^rf^i )•:¦ -'

^ita