E-Mail Me
[p1]
Mr. SEWARD: I mean to say that Congress can hereafter decide whether any states,
slave or free, can be framed out of Texas. If they should never be framed
out of Texas, they never could be admitted.
[p2]
Another objection arises out of the principle on which the demand for
compromise rests. That principle assumes a classification of the states
as northern and southern states, as it is expressed by the honorable senator
from South Carolina, [Mr. CALHOUN] but into slave states and free states,
as more directly expressed by the honorable senator from Georgia [Mr. BERRIEN.]
The argument is, that the states are severally equal, and that these two
classes were equal at the first, and that the Constitution was founded on
that equilibrium; that the states being equal, and the classes of the states
being equal in rights, they are to be regarded as constituting an association
in which each state, and each of these classes of states, respectively, contribute
in due proportions; that the new territories are a common acquisition ,
and the people of these several states and classes of states, have an equal
right to participate in them, respectively; that the right of the people
of the slave states to emigrate to the territories with their slaves as property
is necessary to afford such a participation on their part, inasmuch as the
people of the free states emigrate into the same territories with their
property. And the argument deduces from this right the principle that, if
Congress exclude slavery from any part of this new domain, it would be only
just to set off a portion of the domain--some say south 36[degrees] 30',
others south of 34[degrees]--which should be regarded at least as free to
slavery, and to be organized into slave states.
[p3]
Argument ingenious and subtle, declamation earnest and bold, and persuasion
as gentle and winning as the voice of the turtle dove when it is heard in
the land, all alike and all together have failed to convince me of the soundness
of this principle of the proposed compromise, or of any one of the propositions
on which it is attempted to be established.
[p4]
How is the original equality of the states proved? It rests on a syllogism
of Vattel, as follows: All men are equal by the law of nature and of nations.
But states are only lawful aggregations of individual men, who severally
are equal. Therefore, states are equal in natural rights. All this is just
and sound. But assuming the same premises, to wit, that all men are equal
by the law of nature and of nations, the right of property in slaves falls
to the ground; for one who is equal to another cannot be the owner or property
of that other. But you answer, that the Constitution recognizes property
in slaves. It would be sufficient, then, to reply, that this constitutional
recognition must be void, because it is repugnant to the law of nature and
of nations. But I deny that the Constitution recognizes property in man.
I submit, on the other hand, most respectfully, that the Constitution not
merely does not affirm that principle, but, on the contrary, altogether excludes
it.
[p5]
The Constitution does not expressly affirm anything on the subject;
all that it contains is two incidental allusions to slaves. These are, first,
in the provision establishing a ratio of representation and taxation; and
secondly, in the provision relating to fugitives from labor. In both cases,
the Constitution designedly mentions slaves, not at slaves, much less as
chattels, but as persons. That this recognition of them as persons
was designed is historically known, and I think was never denied. I give only
two of the manifold proofs. First, JOHN JAY, in the Federalistsays:
[p6]
"Let the case of the slaves be considered, as it is in truth, a peculiar one. Let the compromising expedient of the Constitution be mutually adopted which regards them as inhabitants, but as debased below the level of free inhabitants, which regards the slave as divested of two-fifths of the man."
[p7]
Yes, sir, of two-fifths, but only of two-fifths; leaving still three-fifths;
leaving the slave still an inhabitant, a person, a living, breathing,
moving, reasoning, immortal man.
[p8]
The other proof is from the debates in the convention. It is brief, and I
think instructive:
[p9]
AUGUST 28, 1787.[p10]
"Mr. BUTLER and Mr. PINCKNEY moved to require fugitive slaves and servants to be delivered up like convicts.
"Mr. WILSON. This would oblige the executive of the state to do it at public expense.
"Mr. SHERMAN saw no more propriety in the public seizing and surrendering a slave or a servant than a horse.
"Mr. BUTLER withdrew his proposition, in order that some particular provision might be made, apart from this article."[p11]
AUGUST 29, 1787[p12]
"Mr. BUTLER moved to insert after Article 15: 'If any person bound to service or labor in any of the United States shall escape into another state, he or she shall not be discharged from such service or labor in consequence of any regulation subsisting in the state to which they escape, but shall be delivered up to the person justly claiming their service or labor.'"[p13]
"After the engrossment, September 15, page 550, article 4, section 2, the third paragraph, the term 'legally' was struck out, and the words 'under the laws thereof' inserted after the word 'state,' in compliance with the wishes of some who thought the term 'legal' equivocal, and favoring the idea that slavery was legal in a moral view."-- Madison Debates, pp. 487, 492.
[p14]
I deem it established, then, that the Constitution does not recognize property
in man, but leaves that question, as between the states, to the law of nature
and of nations. That law, as expounded by Vattel, is founded on the reason
of things. When God had created the earth, with its wonderful adaptations,
He gave dominion over it to man, absolute human dominion. The title of that
dominion, thus bestowed, would have been incomplete, if the lord of all terrestrial
things could himself have been the property of his fellow- man.
[p15]
The right to have a slave implies the right in some one to make
the slave; that right must be equal and mutual, and this would resolve society
into a state of perpetual war. But if we grant the original equality of the
states, and grant also the constitutional recognition as slaves as property,
still the argument we are considering fails. Because the states are not parties
to the Constitution as states; it is the Constitution of the people of the
United States.
[p16]
But even if the states continue under the constitution as states, they nevertheless
surrendered their equality as states, and submitted themselves to the sway
of the numerical majority, with qualifications or checks; first, of the representation
of three-fifths of slaves in the ratio of representation and taxation; and,
secondly, of the equal representation of states in the Senate.
[p17]
The proposition of an established classification of states as slave states
and free states, as insisted on by some, and into northern
and southern, as maintained by others, seems to me purely imaginary,
and of course the supposed equilibrium of those classes a mere conceit. This
must be so, because, when the Constitution was adopted, twelve of the thirteen
states were slave states, and so there was no equilibrium. And so as to
the classification of states as northern states and southern states. It
is the maintenance of slavery by law in a state, not parallels of latitude,
that makes its a southern state; and the absence of this, that makes it a
northern state. And so all the states, save one, were southern states, and
there was no equilibrium. But the Constitution was made not only for southern
and northern states, but for states neither northern nor southern, namely,
the western states, their coming in being foreseen and provided for.
[p18]
It needs no argument to show that the idea of a joint stock association, or
a copartnership, as applicable even by its analogies to the United States,
is erroneous, with all the consequences fancifully deduced from it. The United
States are a political state, or organized society, whose end is government,
for the security, welfare, and happiness of all who live under its protection.
The theory I am combating reduces the objects of government to the mere
spoils of conquest. Contrary to a theory so debasing, the preamble of the
Constitution not only asserts the sovereignty to be, not in the states, but
in the people, but also promulgates the objects of the Constitution:
[p19]
"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the GENERAL WELFARE, and secure the blessings of liberty, do ordain and establish this Constitution."
[p20]
Objects sublime and benevolent! They exclude the very idea of conquests, to
be either divided among states or even enjoyed by them, for the purpose of
securing, not the blessings of liberty, but the evils of slavery. There is
a novelty in the principle of the proposed compromise which condemns it.
Simultaneously with the establishment of the Constitution, Virginia ceded
to the United States her domain, which then extended to the Mississippi,
and was even claimed to extend to the Pacific Ocean. Congress accepted it,
and unanimously devoted the domain to freedom, in the language from which
the ordinance now so severely condemned was borrowed. Five states have already
been organized on this domain, from all of which, in pursuance of that ordinance,
slavery is excluded. How did it happen that this theory of the equality of
states, of the classification of states, of the equilibrium of states, of
the title of the states, to common enjoyment of the domain, or to an equitable
and just partition between them, was never promulgated, nor even dreamed
of, by the slave states, when they unanimously consented to that ordinance?
[p21]
There is another aspect of the principle of compromise which deserves consideration.
It assumes that slavery, if not the only institution in a slave state, is
at least a ruling institution, and that this characteristic is recognized
by the Constitution. But slavery is only one of many institutions
there. Freedom is equally an institution there. Slavery is only a temporary,
accidental, partial, and incongruous one. Freedom on the contrary, is a perpetual,
organic, universal one, in harmony with the Constitution of the United States.
The slaveholder himself stands under the protection of the latter, in common
with all the free citizens of the state. But it is , moreover, and indispensable
institution. You may separate slavery from South Carolina, and the state
will still remain; but if you subvert freedom there, the state will cease
to exist. But the principle of this compromise gives complete ascendancy
in the slave states, and in the Constitution of the United States, to the
subordinate, accidental, and incongruous institution, over its paramount
antagonist. To reduce this claim of slavery to an absurdity, it is only necessary
to add that there are only two states in which slaves are a majority, and
not one in which the slaveholders are not a very disproportionate minority.
[p22]
But there is yet another aspect in which this principle must be examined.
It regards the domain only as a possession, to be enjoyed either in common
or by partition by the citizens of the old states. It is true, indeed, that
the national domain is ours. It is true it was acquired by the valor and
with the wealth of the whole nation. But we hold, nevertheless, no arbitrary
power over it. We hold no arbitrary authority over anything, whether acquired
lawfully or seized by usurpation. The Congress regulates our stewardship;
the Constitution devotes the domain to union, to justice, to defence, to
welfare, and to liberty.
[p23]
But there is a higher law than the Constitution, which regulates our authority
over the domain, and devotes it to the same noble purposes. The territory
is a part, no inconsiderable part, of the common heritage of mankind, bestowed
upon them by the Creator if the universe. We are his stewards, and must so
discharge our trust as to secure in the highest attainable degree their happiness.
How momentous that trust is, we may learn from the instructions of the founder
of modern philosophy:
[p24]
"No man," says Bacon, "can by care-taking, as the Scripture saith, add a cubit to his stature in this little model of a man's body; but, in the great frame of kingdoms and commonwealths, it is in the power of princes or estates to add amplitude and greatness to their kingdoms. For, by introducing such ordinances, constitutions, and customs, as are wise, they may sow greatness to their posterity and successors. But these things are commonly not observed, but left to take their chance."
[p25]
This is a state, and we are deliberating for it, just as our fathers deliberated
in establishing the institutions we enjoy. Whatever superiority there is
in our condition and hopes of those over any other "kingdom" or "estate,"
is due to the fortunate circumstance that our ancestors did not leave things
to "take their chance," but that they "added amplitude and greatness" to
our commonwealth "by introducing such ordinances, constitutions, and customs,
as were wise." We in our term have succeeded to the same responsibilities,
and we cannot approach the duty before us wisely or justly, except we raise
ourselves to the great consideration of how we can most certainly "sow greatness
to our posterity and successors."
[p26]
And now the simple, bold, and even awful question which presents itself to
us is this: Shall we, who are founding institutions, social and political,
for countless millions; shall we, who know by experience the wise and the
just, and are free to choose them, and to reject the erroneous and the unjust;
shall we establish human bondage, or permit it by our sufferance to be established?
Sir, our forefathers would not have hesitated an hour. They found slavery
existing here, and they left it only because they could not remove it. There
is not only no free state which would now establish it, but there is no slave
state, which, if it had had the free alternative as we now have, would have
founded slavery. Indeed, our revolutionary predecessors had precisely the
same question before them in establishing an organic law under which the
states of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin, have since come
into the Union, and they solemnly repudiated and excluded slavery from those
states forever. I confess that the most alarming evidence of our degeneracy
which has yet been given is found in the fact that we even debate such a
question.
[p27]
Sir, there is no Christian nation, thus free to choose as we are, which would
establish slavery. I speak on due consideration because Britain, France,
and Mexico, have abolished slavery, and all other European states are preparing
to abolish it as speedily as they can. We cannot establish slavery, because
there are certain elements of the security, welfare, and greatness of nations,
which we all admit, or ought to admit, and recognize as essential; and these
are the security of natural rights, the diffusion of knowledge, and the freedom
of industry. Slavery is incompatible with all of these; and, just in proportion
to the extent that it prevails and controls in any republican state, just
to that extent it subverts the principle of democracy, and converts the state
into an aristocracy or a despotism. I will not offend sensibilities by drawing
my proofs from the slave states existing among ourselves; but I will draw
them from the greatest of the European slave states.
The population of Russia in Europe, in 1844, was 54,251,000 Of these were serfs 53,500,000 The residue nobles, clergy, and merchants, &c. 751,000
[p28]
The Imperial government abandons the control over the fifty-three and a half
millions to their owners; and these owners, included in the 751,000, are
thus a privileged class, or aristocracy. If ever the government interferes
at all with the serfs, who are the only laboring population, it is by edicts
designed to abridge their opportunities of education, and thus continue their
debasement. What was the origin of this system? Conquest, in which the captivity
of the conquered was made perpetual and hereditary. This, it seems to me,
is identical with American slavery, only at one and the same time exaggerated
by the greater disproportion between the privileged classes and their slaves
in their respective numbers, and yet relieved of the unhappiest feature
of American slavery, the distinction of castes. What but this renders Russia
at once the most arbitrary despotism and the most barbarous state in Europe?
And what is its effect, but industry comparatively profitless, and sedition,
not occasional and partial, but chronic and pervading the empire. I speak
of slavery not in the language of fancy, but in the language of philosophy.
Montesquieu remarked upon the proposition to introduce slavery into France,
that the demand for slavery was the demand for luxury and corruption, and
not the demand of patriotism. Of all slavery, African slavery is the worst,
for it combines practically the features of what is distinguished as real
slavery or serfdom with the personal slavery known in the oriental world.
Its domestic features lead to vice, while its political features render it
injurious and dangerous to the state.
[p29]
I cannot stop to debate long with those who maintain that slavery itself is
practically economical and humane. I might be content with saying that there
are some axioms in political science that a statesman or a founder of states
may adopt, especially in the Congress of the United States, and that among
those axioms are these: That all men are created equal, and have inalienable
rights of life, liberty, and the choice of pursuits of happiness; that knowledge
promotes virtue, and righteousness exalteth a nation; that freedom is preferable
to slavery, and that democratic governments, where they can be maintained
by acquiescence, without force, are preferable to institutions exercising
arbitrary and irresponsible power.
[p30]
It remains only to remark that our own experience has proved the dangerous
influence and tendency of slavery. All our apprehensions of dangers, present
and future, begin and end with slavery. If slavery, limited as it yet is,
now threatens to subvert the Constitution, how can we as wise and prudent
statesmen, enlarge its boundaries and increase its influence, and thus increase
already impending dangers? Whether, then, I regard merely the welfare of
the future inhabitants of the new territories, or the security and welfare
of the whole people of the United States, or the welfare of the whole family
of mankind, I cannot consent to introduce slavery into any part of this continent
which is now exempt from what seems to me so great an evil. These are my
reasons for declining to compromise the question relating to slavery as
a condition of the admission of California.
[p31]
In acting upon an occasion so grave as this, a respectful consideration
is due to the arguments, founded on extraneous consideration, of senators
who commend a course different from that which I have preferred. The
first of these arguments is, that Congress has no power to legislate on the
subject of slavery within the territories.
[p32]
Sir, Congress may admit new states; and since Congress may admit,
it follows that Congress may reject new states. The discretion of
Congress in admitting is absolute, except that, when admitted, the state
must be a republican state, and must be a STATE: that is, it shall have the
constitutional form and powers of a state. But the greater includes the
less, and therefore Congress may impose conditions of admission
not inconsistent with those fundamental powers and forms. Boundaries are such.
The reservation of the public domain is such. The ordinance excluding slavery
is such a condition. The organization of a territory is ancillary or preliminary;
it is the inchoate, the initiative act of admission, and is performed
under the clause granting the powers necessary to execute the express powers
of the Constitution.
[p33]
This power comes from the treaty-making power also, and I think it well traced
to the power to make needful rules and regulations concerning the public
domain. But this question is not a material one now; the power is here to
be exercised. The question now is, How is it to be exercised? not whether
we shall exercise it at all, however derived. And the right to regulate property,
to administer justice in regard to property, is assumedin every
territorial charter. If we have the power to legislate concerning property,
we have the power to legislate concerning personal rights. Freedom is a personal
right; and Congress, being the supreme legislature, has the same right
in regard to property and personal rights in territories that the states
would have if organized.
[p34]
The next of this class of arguments is, that the inhibition of slavery in
the new territories is unnecessary; and when I come to this question,
I encounter the loss of many who lead in favor of admitting California. I
had hoped, some time ago, that upon the vastly important question of inhibiting
slavery in the new territories, we should have had the aid especially of
the distinguished senator from Missouri, [Mr. BENTON,] and when he announced
his opposition to that measure I was induced to exclaim--
[p35]
Cur in theatrum, Cato severe, venisti?
An ideo, tantum, veneras ut exires?
[p36]
But, sir, I have no right to complain. The senator is crowning a life of eminent
public service by a heroic and magnanimous act in bringing California into
the Union. Grateful to him for this, I leave it to himself to determine how
far considerations of human freedom shall govern the course which he thinks
proper to pursue.
[p37]
The argument is, that the Proviso is unnecessary. I answer, then
there can be no error in insisting upon it. But why is it unnecessary? It
is said, first, by reason of climate. I answer, if this
be so, why do not the representatives of the slave states concede the Proviso?
They deny that the climate prevents the introduction of slavery. Then I will
leave nothing to a contingency. But, in truth, I think the weight of the
argument is against the proposition. Is there any climate where slavery has
not existed? It has prevailed all over Europe, from sunny Italy to bleak
England, and is existing now, stronger than in any other land, in ice-bound
Russia. But it will be replied, that this is not African slavery. I rejoin,
that only makes the case stronger. If this vigorous Saxon race of ours was
reduced to slavery while it retained the courage of semi-barbarism in its
own high northern latitude, what security does climate afford against the
transplantation of the more gentle, more docile, and already enslaved and
debased African to the genial climate of New Mexico and Eastern California?
[p38]
Sir, there is no climate uncongenial to slavery. It is true it is less productive
than free labor in many northern countries. But so it is less productive
than free white labor in even tropical climates. Labor is in quick demand
in all new countries. Slave labor is cheaper than free labor, and it would
go first into new regions; and wherever it goes it brings labor into dishonor,
and therefore free white labor avoids competition with it. Sir, I might rely
on climate if I had not been born in a land where slavery existed--and this
land was all of it north of the fortieth parallel of latitude; and if I did
not know the struggle it has cost, and which is yet going on, to get complete
relief from the institution and its baleful consequences. I desire to propound
this question to those who are now in favor of dispensing with the Wilmot
Proviso: Was the ordinance of 1787 necessary or not? Necessary, we all agree.
It has received too many elaborate eulogiums to be now decried as an idle
and superfluous thing. And yet that ordinance extended the inhibition of
slavery from the thirty-seventh to the fortieth parallel of north latitude.
And now we are told that the inhibition named is unnecessary anywhere north
of 36[degrees] 30'! We are told that we may rely upon the laws of God, which
prohibit slave labor north of that line, and that it is absurd to re-enact
the laws of God. Sir, there is no human enactment which is just that is not
a re-enactment of the law of God. The Constitution of the United States and
the constitutions of all the states are full of such re-enactments. Wherever
I find a law of God or a law of nature disregarded, or in danger of being
disregarded, there I shall vote to re- affirm it, with all the sanction of
the civil authority. But I find no authority for the position that climate
prevents slavery anywhere. It is the indolence of mankind in any climate,
and not any natural necessity, that introduces slavery in any climate.
[p39]
I shall dwell only very briefly on the argument derived from the Mexican laws.
The proposition, that those laws must remain in force until altered by laws
of our own, is satisfactory; and so is the proposition that those laws abolished
and continue to prohibit slavery. And still I deem an enactment by ourselves
wise, and even necessary. Both of the propositions I have stated are denied
with just as much confidence by southern statesmen and jurists as they are
affirmed by those of the free states. The population of the new territories
is rapidly becoming an American one, to whom the Mexican code will seem a
foreign one, entitled to little deference or obedience.
[p40]
Slavery has never obtained anywhere by express legislative authority, but
always by trampling down laws higher than any mere municipal laws--the laws
of nature and of nations. There can be no oppression in superadding the sanction
of Congress to the authority which is so weak and so vehemently questioned.
And there is some possibility, if not probability, that the institution
may obtain a foothold surreptitiously, if it shall not be absolutely forbidden
by our own authority.
[p41]
What is insisted upon, therefore, is not a mere abstraction or a mere sentiment,
as is contended by those who waive the proviso. And what is conclusive on
the subject is, that it is conceded on all hands that the effect of insisting
on it is to prevent the intrusion of slavery into the region to which it
is proposed to apply it.
[p42]
It is insisted that the diffusion of slavery will not increase its evils.
The argument seems to me merely specious, and quite unsound. I desire to
propose one or two questions in reply to it. Is slavery stronger or weaker
in these United States, from its diffusion into Missouri? Is slavery weaker
or stronger in these United States, from the exclusion of it from the northwest
territory? The answers to these questions will settle the whole controversy.
[p43]
And this brings me to the great and all-absorbing argument that the Union
is in danger of being dissolved, and that it can only be saved by compromise.
I do not know what I would not do to save the Union; and therefore I shall
bestow upon this subject a very deliberate consideration.
[p44]
I do not overlook the fact that the entire delegation from the slave states,
although they differ in regard to the details of the compromise proposed,
and perhaps in regard to the exact circumstances of the crisis, seem to concur
in this momentous warning. Nor do I doubt at all the patriotic devotion to
the Union which is expressed by those from whom this warning proceeds. And
yet, sir, although such warnings have been uttered with impassioned solemnity
in my hearing every day for near three months, my confidence in the Union
remains unshaken. I think they are to be received with no inconsiderable distrust,
because they are uttered under the influence of a controlling interest to
be secured, a paramount object to be gained; and that is an equilibrium of
power in the republic. I think they are to be received with even more distrust,
because, with the most profound respect, they are uttered under an obviously
high excitement. Nor is that excitement an unnatural one. It is a law of
our nature that the passions disturb the reason and judgment just in proportion
to the importance of the occasion, and the consequent necessity for calmness
and candor. I think they are to be distrusted, because there is a diversity
of opinion in regard to the nature and operation of this excitement. The
senators in some states say that it has brought all parties in their own
region into unanimity. The honorable senator form Kentucky [Mr. CLAY] says
that the danger lies in violence of party spirit, and refers us for proof
to the difficulties which attended the organization of the house of representatives.
[p45]
Sir, in my humble judgment, it is not the fierce conflict of parties that
we are seeing and hearing; but, on the contrary, it is the agony of distracted
parties--a convulsion resulting from the too narrow foundations of both the
great parties, and of all parties-- foundations laid in compromises of natural
justice and of human liberty. A question, a moral question, transcending
the too narrow creeds of parties, has arisen; the public conscience expands
with it, and the green withes of party associations give way and break,
and fall off from it. No, sir; it is not the state that is dying of the fever
of party spirit. It is merely a paralysis of parties, premonitory however
of their restoration, with new elements of health and vigor to be imbibed
from that spirit of the age which is so justly called Progress.
[p46]
Nor is the evil that of unlicensed, irregular, and turbulent faction. We are
told that twenty legislatures are in session, burning like furnaces, heating
and inflaming the popular passions. But these twenty legislatures are constitutional
furnaces. They are performing their customary functions, imparting healthful
heat and vitality while within their constitutional jurisdiction. If they
rage beyond its limits, the popular passions of this country are not at all,
I think, in danger of being inflamed to excess. No, sir; let none of these
fires be extinguished. Forever let them burn and blaze. They are neither
ominous meteors nor baleful comets, but planets; and bright and intense
as their heat may be, it is their native temperature, and they must still
obey the law which, by attraction to this solar centre, holds them in their
spheres.
[p47]
I see nothing of that conflict between the southern and northern states, or
between their representative bodies, which seems to be on all sides of me
assumed. Not a word of menace, not a word of anger, not an intemperate word,
has been uttered in the northern legislatures. They firmly but calmly assert
their convictions; but at the same time they assert their unqualified consent
to submit to the common arbiter, and for weal or wo abide the fortunes of
the Union.
[p48]
What if there be less of moderation in the legislatures of the south? It only
indicates on which side the balance is inclining, and that the decision of
the momentous question is near at hand. I agree with those who say there
can be no peaceful dissolution--no dissolution of the Union by the secession
of states; but that disunion, dissolution, happen when it may, will and must
be revolution. I discover no omens of revolution. The predictions of the
political astrologers do not agree as to the time or manner in which it
is to occur. According to the authority of the honorable senator from Alabama,
[Mr. CLEMENS,] the event has already happened, and the Union is now in ruins.
According to the honorable and distinguished senator from South Carolina,
[Mr. CALHOUN,] it is not to be immediate, but to be developed by time.
[p49]
What are the omens to which our attention is directed? I see nothing but a
broad difference of opinion here, and the excitement consequent upon it.
[p50]
I have observed that revolutions which begin in the palace seldom go beyond
the palace walls, and they affect only the dynasty which reigns there. This
revolution, if I understand it, began in this Senate chamber a year ago,
when the representatives from the southern states assembled here and addressed
their constituents on what were called the aggressions of the northern states.
No revolution was designed at that time, and all that has happened since
is the return to Congress of legislative resolutions, which seem to me to
be only conventional responses to the address which emanated from the capitol.
[p51]
Sir, in any condition of society there can be no revolution without a cause,
an adequate cause. What cause exists here? We are admitting a new state;
but there is nothing new in that: we have already admitted seventeen before.
But it is said that the slave states are in danger of losing political power
by the admission of the new state. Well, sir, is there anything new in that?
The slave states have always been losing political power, and they always
will be while they have any to lose. At first, twelve of the thirteen states
were slave states; now only fifteen out of thirty are slaves states. Moreover,
the change is constitutionally made, and the government was constructed so
as to permit changes of the balance of power, in obedience to changes of
the forces of the body politic. Danton used to say, "It's all well while
the people cry Danton and Robespierre; but wo for me if ever the people learn
to say, Robespierre and Danton!" That is all of it, sir. The people have
been accustomed to say, "the South and the North;" they are only beginning
now to say, "the North and the South."
[p52]
Sir, those who would alarm us with the terrors of revolution have not well
considered the structure of this government, and the organization of its
forces. It is a democracy of property and persons, with a fair approximation
towards universal education, and operating by means of universal suffrage.
The constituent members of this democracy are the only persons who could
subvert it; and they are not the citizens of a metropolis like Paris, or
of a region subjected to the influences of a metropolis like France; but they
are husbandmen, dispersed over this broad land, on the mountain and on the
plain, and on the prairie, from the ocean to the Rocky Mountains, and from
the great lakes to the gulf; and this people are now, while we are discussing
their imaginary danger, at peace and in their happy homes, as unconcerned
and uninformed of their peril as they are of events occurring in the moon.
Nor have the alarmists made due allowance in their calculations for the
influence of conservative reaction, strong in any government, and irresistible
in a rural republic, operating by universal suffrage. That principle of
reaction is due to the force of the habits of acquiescence and loyalty among
the people. No man better understood this principle than MACHIAVELLI, who
has told us, in regard to factions, that "no safe reliance can be placed
in the force of nature and the bravery of words, except it be corroborated
by custom." Do the alarmists remember that this government has stood sixty
years already without exacting one drop of blood?--that this government
has stood sixty years, and yet treason is an obsolete crime? That day, I
trust, is far off when the fountains of popular contentment shall be broken
up; but whenever it shall come, it will bring forth a higher illustration
than has ever yet been given of the excellence of the democratic system;
for then it will be seen how calmly, how firmly, how nobly, a great people
can act in preserving their Constitution; whom "love of country moveth, example
teacheth, company comforteth, emulation quickeneth, and glory exalteth."
[p53]
When the founders of the new republic of the south come to draw over the face
of this empire, along or between its parallels of latitude or longitude,
their ominous lines of dismemberment, soon to be broadly and deeply shaded
with fraternal blood, they may come to the discovery then, if not before,
that the natural and even political connections of the region embraced forbid
such a partition; that its possible divisions are not northern and southern
at all, but eastern and western, Atlantic and Pacific; and that nature and
commerce have allied indissolubly for weal and wo the seceders and those from
whom they are to be separated; that while they would rush into a civil war
to restore and imaginary equilibrium between the northern states and the
southern states, a new equilibrium has taken its place, in which all those
states are on one side, and the boundless west is on the other.
[p54]
Sir, when the founders of the republic of the south come to draw those fearful
lines, they will indicate what portions of the continent are to be broken
off with their connection from the Atlantic, through the St. Lawrence, the
Hudson, the Delaware, the Potomac, and the Mississippi; what portion of this
people are to be denied the use of the lakes, the railroads, and the canals,
now constituting common and customary avenues of travel, trade, and social
intercourse; what families and kindred are to be separated, and converted
into enemies; and what states are to be the scenes of perpetual border warfare,
aggravated by interminable horrors of servile insurrection? When those portentous
lines shall be drawn, they will disclose what portion of this people is
to retain the army and the navy, and the flag of so many victories; and
on the other hand, what portion of the people is to be subjected to new
and onerous imposts, direct taxes, and forced loans, and conscriptions, to
maintain an opposing army, an opposing navy, and the new and hateful banner
of sedition. Then the projectors of the new republic of the south will meet
the question--and they may well prepare now to answer it--What is all this
for? What intolerable wrong, what unfraternal injustice, have rendered these
calamities unavoidable? What gain will this unnatural revolution bring to
us? The answer will be: All this is done to secure the institution of African
slavery.
[p55]
And then, if not before, the question will be discussed, What is this institution
of slavery, that it should cause these unparalleled sacrifices and these
disastrous afflictions? And this will be the answer: When the Spaniards,
few in number, discovered the western Indies and adjacent continental America,
they needed labor to draw forth from its virgin stores some speedy return
to the cupidity of the court and the bankers of Madrid. They enslaved the
indolent, inoffensive, and confiding natives, who perished by thousands, and
even by millions, under that new and unnatural bondage. A humane ecclesiastic
advised the substitution of Africans reduced to captivity in their native
wars, and a pious princess adopted the suggestion, with a dispensation from
the head of the church, granted on the ground of the prescriptive right of
the christian to enslave the heathen, to effect his conversion. The colonists
of North America, innocent in their unconsciousness of wrong, encouraged
the slave traffic, and thus the labor of subduing their territory devolved
chiefly upon the African race. A happy conjuncture brought on an awakening
of the conscience of mankind to the injustice of slavery, simultaneously
with the independence of the colonies. Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode
Island, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, welcomed
and embraced the spirit of universal emancipation. Renouncing luxury, they
secured influence and empire. But the states of the south, misled by a new
and profitable culture, elected to maintain and perpetuate slavery; and thus,
choosing luxury, they lost power and empire.
[p56]
When this answer shall be given, it will appear that the question of dissolving
the Union is a complex question; that it embraces the fearful issue whether
the Union shall stand, and slavery, under the steady, peaceful action of
moral, social, and political causes, be removed by gradual voluntary effort,
and with compensation, or whether the Union shall be dissolved, and civil
wars ensue, bringing on violent but complete and immediate emancipation.
We are now arrived at that stage of our national progress when that crisis
can be foreseen, when we must foresee it. It is directly before us. Its shadow
is upon us. It darkens the legislative halls, the temples of worship, and
the home and the hearth. Every question, political, civil, or ecclesiastical,
however foreign to the subject of slavery, brings up slavery as an incident,
and the incident supplants the principle question. We hear of nothing but
slavery, and we can talk of nothing but slavery. And now, it seems to me that
all our difficulties, embarrassments, and dangers, arise, not out of unlawful
perversions of the question of slavery, as some suppose, but from the want
of moral courage to meet this question of emancipation as we ought. Consequently,
we hear on one side demands-- absurd, indeed, but yet unceasing--for an immediate
and unconditional abolition of slavery--as if any power, except the people
of the slave states, could abolish it, and as if they could be moved to
abolish it by merely sounding the trumpet loudly and proclaiming emancipation,
while the institution is interwoven with all their social and political interests,
constitutions, and customs.
[p57]
On the other hand, our statesmen say that "slavery has always existed, and,
for aught they know or can do, it always must exist. God permitted it, and
he alone can indicate the way to remove it." As if the Supreme Creator, after
giving us the instructions of his providence and revelation for the illumination
of our minds and consciences, did not leave us in all human transactions,
with due invocations of his Holy Spirit, to seek out his will and execute
it for ourselves.
[p58]
Here, then, is the point of my separation from both of these parties. I feel
assured that slavery must give way, and will give way, to the salutary instructions
of economy, and to the ripening influences of humanity; that emancipation
is inevitable, and is near; that it may be hastened or hindered; and that
whether it shall be peaceful or violent, depends upon the question whether
it be hastened or hindered; that all measures which fortify slavery or extend
it, tend to be the consummation of violence; all that check its extension
and abate its strength, tend to its peaceful extirpation. But I will adopt
none but lawful, constitutional, and peaceful means, to secure even that
end; and none such can I or will I forego. Nor do I know any important or
responsible political body that proposes to do more than this. No free state
claims to extend its legislation into a slave state. None claims that Congress
shall usurp power to abolish slavery in the slave states. None claims that
any violent, unconstitutional, or unlawful measure shall be embraced. And,
on the other hand, if we offer no scheme or plan for the adoption of the
slave states, with the assent and co- operation of Congress, it is only because
the slave states are unwilling as yet to receive such suggestions, or even
to entertain the question of emancipation in any form.
[p59]
But, sir, I will take this occasion to say that, while I cannot agree with
the honorable senator from Massachusetts in proposing to devote eighty millions
of dollars to remove the free colored population from the slave states, and
thus , as it appears to me, fortify slavery, there is no reasonable limit
to which I am not willing to go in applying the national treasures to effect
the peaceful, voluntary removal of slavery itself.
[p60]
I have thus endeavored to show that there is not now, and there is not likely
to occur any adequate cause for revolution in regard to slavery. But you
reply that, nevertheless, you must have guaranties; and the first one is
for the surrender of fugitives from labor. That guaranty you cannot have,
as I have already shown, because you cannot roll back the tide of social
progress. You must be content with what you have. If you wage war against
us, you can, at most, only conquer us, and then all you can get will be a
treaty, and that you have already.
[p61]
But you insist on a guaranty against the abolition of slavery in the District
of Columbia, or war. Well, when you shall have declared war against us, what
shall hinder us from immediately decreeing that slavery shall cease within
the national capital?
[p62]
You say that you will not submit to the exclusion of slaves from the new territories.
What will you gain by resistance? Liberty follows the sword, although her
sway is one of peace and beneficence. Can you propagate slavery then by
the sword?
[p63]
You insist that you cannot submit to the freedom with which slavery is discussed
in the free states. Will war--a war for slavery--arrest or even moderate
that discussion? No, sir; that discussion will not cease; war will only inflame
it in to a greater height. It is part of the eternal conflict between truth
and error--between mind and physical force--the conflict of man against the
obstacles which oppose his way to an ultimate and glorious destiny. It will
go on until you shall terminate it in the only way in which any state or
nation has ever terminated it--by yielding to it--yielding in your own time,
and in your own manner, indeed, but nevertheless yielding to the progress
of emancipation. You will do this, sooner or later, whatever may be your
opinion now; because nations which were prudent and humane, and wise as you
are, have done so already.
[p64]
Sir, the slave states have no reason to fear that this inevitable change will
go too far or too fast for their safety or welfare. It cannot well go too
fast or too far, if the only alternative is a war of races.
[p65]
But it cannot go too fast. Slavery has a reliable and accommodating ally in
a party in the free states, which, though it claims to be, and doubtless
is in many respects, a party of progress, finds its sole security for its
political power in the support and aid of slavery in the slave states. Of
course, I do not include in that party those who are now co-operating in
maintaining the cause of freedom against slavery. I am not of that party of
progress which in the north thus lends its support to slavery. But it is
only just and candid that I should bear witness to its fidelity to the interests
of slavery.
[p66]
Slavery has, moreover, a more natural alliance with the aristocracy of the
north and with the aristocracy of Europe. So long as slavery shall possess
the cotton-fields, the sugar-fields, and the rice-fields of the world, so
long will commerce and capital yield it toleration and sympathy. Emancipation
is a democratic revolution. It is capital that arrests all democratic revolutions.
It was capital that, so recently, in single year, rolled back the tide of
revolution from the base of the Carpathian mountains, across the Danube and
the Rhine, into the streets of Paris. It is capital that is rapidly rolling
back the throne of Napoleon into the chambers of the Tuilleries.
[p67]
Slavery has a guaranty still stronger than these in the prejudices of caste
and color, which induce even large majorities in all the free states to regard
sympathy with the slave as an act of unmanly humiliation and self-abasement,
although philosophy meekly expresses her distrust of the asserted natural
superiority of the white race, and confidently denies that such a superiority,
if justly claimed, could give a title to oppression.
[p68]
There remains one more guaranty--one that has seldom failed you, and will
seldom fail you hereafter. New states cling in closer alliance than older
ones to the federal power. The concentration of the slave power enables you
for long periods to control the federal government with the aid of new states.
I do not know the sentiments of the representatives of California; but,
my word for it, if they should be admitted on this floor to-day, against your
most obstinate opposition, they would, on all questions really affecting your
interests, be found at your side.
[p69]
With these alliances to break the force of emancipation, there will be no
disunion and no secession. I do not say that there may not be disturbance,
though I do not apprehend even that. Absolute regularity and order in administration
have not yet been established in any government, and unbroken popular tranquillity
has not yet been attained in even the most advanced condition of human society.
The machinery of our system is necessarily complex. A pivot may drop out
here, a lever may be displaced there, a wheel may fall out of gearing elsewhere,
but the machinery will soon recover its regularity, and move on just as before,
with even better adaptation and adjustment to overcome new obstructions.
[p70]
There are many well-disposed persons who are alarmed at the occurrence of
any such disturbance. The failure of a legislative body to organize is to
their apprehension a fearful omen, and an extra-constitutional assemblage
to consult upon public affairs is with them cause for desperation. Even senators
speak of the Union as if it existed only by consent, and, as it seems to
be implied, by the assent of the legislatures of the states. On the contrary,
the union was not founded in voluntary choice, nor does it exist by voluntary
consent.
[p71]
A union was proposed to the colonies by Franklin and others, in 1754; but
such was their aversion to an abridgment of their own importance, respectively,
that it was rejected even under the pressure of a disastrous invasion by
France.
[p72]
A union of choice was proposed to the colonies in 1775; but so strong was
their opposition, that they went through the war of independence without
having established more than a mere council of consultation.
[p73]
But with independence came enlarged interests of agriculture--absolutely new
interests of manufactures--interests of commerce, of fisheries, of navigation,
of a common domain, of common debts, of common revenues and taxation, of
the administration of justice, of public defence, of public honor; in short,
interests of common nationality and sovereignty- -interests which at last
compelled the adoption of a more perfect union--a National Government.
[p74]
The genius, talents, and learning of Hamilton, of Jay, and of Madison, surpassing
perhaps the intellectual power ever exerted before for the establishment of
a government, combined with the serene but mighty influence of Washington,
were only sufficient to secure the reluctant adoption of the Constitution
that is now the object of all our affections and of the hopes of mankind.
No wonder that the conflicts in which that Constitution was born, and the
almost desponding solemnity of Washington, in his farewell address, impressed
his countrymen and mankind with a profound distrust of its perpetuity! No
wonder that while the murmurs of that day are yet ringing in our ears, we
cherish that distrust, with pious reverence, as a national and patriotic sentiment!
[p75]
But it is time to prevent the abuses of that sentiment. It is time to shake
off that fear, for fear is always weakness. It is time to remember that government,
even when it arises by chance or accident, and is administered capriciously
or oppressively, is ever the strongest of all human institutions, surviving
many social and ecclesiastical changes and convulsions; and that this Constitution
of ours has all the inherent strength common to governments in general,
and added to them has also the solidity and firmness derived from broader
and deeper foundations in national justice, and a better civil adaptation
to promote the welfare and happiness of mankind.
[p76]
The Union, the creature of necessities, physical, moral, social, and political,
endures by virtue of the same necessities; and these necessities are stronger
than when it was produced--stronger by the greater amplitude of territory
now covered by it--stronger by the sixfold increase of the society living
under its beneficent protection--stronger by the augmentation ten thousand
times of the fields, the workshops, the mines, and the ships, of that society;
of its productions of the sea, of the plow, of the loom, and of the anvil,
in their constant circle of internal and international exchange--stronger
in the long rivers penetrating regions before unknown--stronger in all the
artificial roads, canals, and other channels and avenues essential not only
to trade but to defence--stronger in steam navigation, in steam locomotion
on the land, and in telegraph communications, unknown when the Constitution
was adopted--stronger in the freedom and in the growing empire of the seas--stronger
in the element of national honor in all lands, and stronger than all in the
now habits of veneration and affection for institutions so stupendous and
so useful.
[p77]
The Union, then, is, not because merely that men choose that it shall be,
but because some government must exist here, and no other government than
this can. If it could be dashed to atoms by the whirlwind, the lightning,
or the earthquake, to-day, it would rise again in all its just and magnificent
proportions to-morrow. This nation is a globe, still accumulating upon accumulation,
not a dissolving sphere.
[p78]
I have heard somewhat here, and almost for the first time in my life, of divided
allegiance--of allegiance to the south and to the Union--of allegiance to
states severally and to the Union. Sir, if sympathies with state emulation
and pride of achievement could be allowed to raise up another sovereign to
divide the allegiance of a citizen of the United States, I might recognize
the claims of the state to which, by birth and gratitude, I belong- -to the
state of Hamilton and Jay, of Schuyler, of the Clintons, and of Fulton--the
state which, with less than two hundred miles of natural navigation connected
with the ocean, has, by her own enterprise, secured to herself the commerce
of the continent, and is steadily advancing to the command the commerce of
the world. But for all this I know only one country and one sovereign--the
United States of America and the American People. And such as my allegiance
is, is the loyalty of every other citizen of the United States. As I speak,
he will speak when his time arrives. He knows no other country and no other
sovereign. He has life, liberty, property, and precious affections, and hopes
for himself and for his posterity, treasured up in the ark of the Union.
He knows as well and feels as strongly as I do, that this government is his
own government; that he is a part of it; that it was established for him;
and that it was maintained by him; that it is the only truly wise, just,
free, and equal government, that has ever existed; that no other government
could be so wise, just, free and equal; and that it is safer and more beneficent
than any which time or change could bring into its place.
[p79]
You may tell me, sir, that although all this may be true, yet the trial of
faction has not yet been made. Sir, if the trial of faction has not been
made, it has not been because faction has not always existed, and has not
always menaced a trial, but because faction could find no fulcrum on which
to place the lever to subvert the Union, as it can find no fulcrum now; and
in this is my confidence. I would not rashly provoke the trial; but I will
not suffer a fear, which I have not, to make me compromise one sentiment,
one principle of truth or justice, to avert a danger that all experience
teaches me is purely chimerical. Let, then, those who distrust the Union
make compromises to save it. I shall not impeach their wisdom, as I certainly
cannot their patriotism; but, indulging no such apprehensions myself, I shall
vote for the admission of California directly, without conditions, without
qualifications, and without compromise.
[p80]
For the vindication of that vote, I look not to the verdict of the passing
hour, disturbed as the public mind now is by conflicting interests and passions,
but to that period, happily not far distant, when the vast regions over which
we are now legislating shall have received their destined inhabitants.
[p81]
While looking forward to that day, its countless generations seem to me to
be rising up and passing in dim and shadowy review before us; and a voice
comes forth from their serried ranks, saying: "Waste your treasures and your
armies, if you will; raze your fortifications to the ground; sink your navies
into the sea; transmit to us even a dishonored name, if you must; but the
soil you hold in trust for us--give it to us free. You found it free, and
conquered it to extend a better and surer freedom over it. Whatever choice
you have made for yourselves, let us have no partial freedom; let us all
be free; let the reversion of your broad domain descend to us unencumbered,
and free from the calamities and from the sorrows of human bondage."