| OCR Text |
Show 226 THE :MISBOUH.l QUESTION. ledge is indispensable when it is sought to effect cmanci. pation on terms the best calculated to insure infallible succc s, and to effect it in a \vay the least likely to hazard any destructive revolution that might, in un ·killful handR, in ure more evil than the good intended. If we a(lm it slaveholders to have more knowledge on this subject than, from the nature of the case, we can have, their voice in con neil shonld not lJe entirely unheeded. But, sir, we have now arrived at a point at which every gentleman agrees something must be done. A precipice lies before us, at which perdition is in cvituulc. Gentlemen on both sides of this question, and in both liouses, in doors and out of doors, have evinced a determination that augurs ill of the high destinies of this country ? .And who does not tremble for the consequences? I do not here speak of that feeling which results from an apprehension of personal danger. No, sir 1 I speak of that feelin.g which agitates tuc soul of every patriot when his country is in danger. I speak of that feeling, without a susceptibility of which a man is no ornament to any country. I wish not to be misunderstood, sir. I don't pretend to soy that in just five calendar months yonr union will be at an end ; your constitution dcstroyod; yonr proud trophies, won in the mo, t valiant combat, profaned ; glories of half a century, gained oy yourselves and your departed friends, and uncqnaleu in the history of any country or people on the face of tho earth, made tbe sport of an envying world ; and all this in a sacrilegious contest, at the end of which no wise man would give a pea-straw for his choiC'c on which side to be found, as the victors would have lost all, and the vanquished have nothing left to excite envy. February, 1820. Mr. Richard M. J ohnson, of Kentucky, addressed the Senate as follows : THE ~ti. SO URI QUESTION. 227 Mr. President : It appears to me, sir, that in the course of this debate we have n nhappily misunderstood each other. Expressions have been used, on both sides, conveying different sentiments from what were in tended. Those who have advocated the mea. ure of restriction, have used langnn.gc which would indicate a di 'position to proceed to uniYersal emancipation, alike regan11c. s of the means by which they would accomplish it, and of the sovereignty of the States in which it is tolerated ; at the sumo time charging upon the present proprietors of this species of property all the odium of that perfidy and cruelty by which slavery was first introduced into the country. Those, on the other hand, who have contended for the sovereignty of the States, and opposed the measure of restri ction as an assumption of power unknown in the Constitution, have given a latitude to their exprc. sio ns which has been constt ·ucd into a justification of the abstract principle of slavery. Misconceptions, and misconstructions of language, prodncinO' crimination and recrimination, should ever be avoided in this oody, especially upon this delicate subject. On reviewing the scope of argument, on both sides, I am satisfied that the one cannot be justly charged with advocating the sentiments which their langnagc would seem to indicate; nor t.hc other, with an attempt to justify the abstract principle of slavery as either religiou sly, morally, or politically, correct. None will pretend, that Congress can interfere with the snbject of slavery in the several States; and no member of the Senate could ad vocate the slave trade without exciting the indignation of the whole nation. The tree is known by its frnit. And let me entreat yon, sit·, to recollect what has been the cond net of the representatives of States, where t.his property is recognized, from the commencement of 1808, the moment in which the general government was authorized by t.he Constitution to put an end to this merciless trn ffic. Not a solitnry voice bas been |
