| OCR Text |
Show 22 truth is just this: They have, in their own States, peculiar laws, which create property in persons. They have a system of local leg islation on which sla ve ry rests; while e\•erybody agrees that it is again st uatural law, or at least against the common und ersta nding which p1 evails among men as to what is natural law. l am not goi ng into metaphysics, for therein I should ~ncounter the Bon. member fmm South Carolina , and we should wander m " endless mazes lost," until after the time for the adjourmuent of Congress. The Southern States have peculiar laws, aud by those laws there is property in slaves. This is purely local. The real meaning, then, of Southern gentl emen, in making this complaint, is that they cannot go into the territori eii of the United States ca rrying with th em th e ir own peculiar local law , a law which creates properly in persons. This, according to the ir own statement, is all the ground of cotnplaint they have. Now here, I think, gentlemen are unjust wwardl:i us. llow unjust they are , others will judge, generations that will come after us will judge. Jt willuot be contended that this sort of personal slave ry exists by gene ral law. It exists o nly by local law. I do not mean to de ny the vn lidity of that local law where it is established; hut l say it is, after all , local law. It is nothing more. And whe rever that local law does not extend, property in pe rsons does not exist. 'Veil , sir, what is now the demand on the part of our Southern friends1 They say, 11 \Ve will carry our local laws with us wherever we go. We insist that Congress does us injustice unless it establi shes in the territory in which we wi:slr to go, our own local law." This demnud I, for one, resist, and shall resist. It goes upon the idea that th ere is an inequality, unless persons under this local law, and holding property by authority of that law, can go into new territory and th ere establi sh that local law, to the exclusion of the general law. l\lr. President, it was a maxim of the civil law, that between s lavery and freedom, freedom should always be pre· sumed, and slavery must always Le proved. If any question arose a:s to the status of an individu al in Rome, he was presumed to be free until he was proved to be a sla\'e. Because slavery is an exception to the general rule. So, I suppose, is the ge neral law of mankind. An individual is to be presumed to be fr ee , until a law can be produced which c reates ow nersh~> in his pe rson. I do not dispute the force and validity of the luca l\aw , as I have already said; but, I say , it is a matter to be proved; and , therefore, if individu als go into any part of the earth, it is to be proved that they are not freemen, or else the presumption is that they are. Now, our friends seem to think th at an inequnlity arises from restraining them from going into the te rrito ries, unle~s there be a law provid ed which shall protect th eir ownership in persons. The assertion is, that we c reate an iu eoq uality. Is th ere nothing to be said on the other side, in r elation to inequ ality 1 Sir, from the date of this Constitution, and in the cou ncils that formed and establi shed this Constitution, and I suppose in all men's judgment s ince , it is receivPd as a settled truth , that slilVC labor and free labor do not exist well together. I have before me a declaration of Mr. Mason, in the convention th at form ed the Constitution, to that effect. Mr. Mason, as is well known, was a di stin gui shed member from Vircr ini a. He says that the ?bjection to sla ve labor is, that it puts free white l~bor in dis-r epute; that 1t .makes labor to he regarded as de rog-atory to the character of th~ free wln.te man, and that the free white man de~pises to work, to l!se hts express10n, where slaves are employed . This is a matter of gre.at mteresl to the free States, if it be true1 as to a great extent it certainly 1!1, that wherever slave labor prevails, free white labor i:; excluded or di scour· 23 aged, t ~gree that •lave labor does . ~tally. 1 here is free white lobor . n~ - neces•nnly exclude free labor ta tes, .where most of the labo r is don~lb lrguH a, Tennessee, and othe; :~;:letlhu>g of its re;pectuhility, by the sfd~l av?": But it necessurily loses de .tbor. Wherever lnbor is mainly I" o , dnd when as.ociated with ~s egradtng to free men. The free ' ~er ~nne by • loves, it is regu rded eep lllt~rest to keep la bor fr ee, exclus~c n o th e. North, therefore, have a But, Sir, let us look farther ill to tl. elf, fr ee, ~~~ the new territories ~reteuce that Southern people ma ~~t n egerl tnequa lity. There i~ no ubject to the o rdinauce of 1787. y '1'1 go IIIlo ter.rtto~y which shall be ;~ot car? slaves thither and continue i~u~ulyl restratnt IS that they s hall ~m a together out. 'Why, s ir, there crt• re atiOr_l. They l!lllJ this shuts p~mt of fact th un thi• statement. I d' n he not lung more inaccu rate in w IO sett led Illinois are I un erst.llld thrt.t o ne hlllf the the Southern States' A ~col p e, or descend ants of people who pe~ople nrc th , n !SUppose th at one tl . I f • ca n•e •rom I ose, or deeccndants of those wll ' . llr{ o the people o f Ohio ve nture to say tl · ' 0 e rn•grated fror tl S Betti I b ' Jat Ill respec t to those tw S . n •e outh ; and b e< ly people of Southern origin in o t,ttes, they are at thi• d ay y peop e of No rth ern origin ·tcco d . as g reat a proportion as the are ~:~p~rtioln of people, South and Nort;, '"¥r/o the general nurnber/ and I out I, In proportion to the whole .· I Je;e are as many people from ;;"~:.:r7s,";J.,~:.o~o t;~~~;:::,'·;" rror1;~~,Pt~ ~he t:~,o~~~~~pii~ ~~~~;7~ ~~~~~· ~fa prculior locnl law. N~ith":;li•i:;·n JHOJ~lcl; t!terc_ is on(~ the ,.;rlusio,; neq ua 1ty. . pnnc1p e nor m fnct i~ there an Th~ questiOn now is wheth er i . Y ~:~rctse of a fair and j'ust discret~OI~s ~lOt competent to Congres~, in tho ac e .. ?een fh•e s lrt.ve holding Stiltes' ~I ~~y that, . cons idering that there qUistttoml, and as yet I IH c e to this Union ou t f f1 . ~n";;asonable or. ~njnst~~: ~~= z~~=h~~::e; under this otate of t~ingo;~:gi~ of Cease. That •• the question. I ~ee d egree, t? prevent th ei r furth er gresso;~;;~:~·l ;o',~,':;re o~~~hi:;lge tsoul~dd~ to ~~h~~(ut~~~dmtil~ ot~::~·~yhe pCower ment a 1 >Ject It m b . • · on .. see fit. nJt ;~~; ~.uch lafws, in I he t~rritorie~y .~:t~n ~~:h d1·ny su~h govern .. it is d u Ject, o cour~e to the I . 1 '.' • I !I tscretwn, it may 1 lun er r~o coustitutional restraint ru es of JU Stice and propriety. but Jav~ sa ul that I shall s. ' upon tins contin consent to no exte ns ion f I other House of ~nt i nor to any in crease of !! lave o t Je area .of sl.avery, I have now sta~~fres!. representation tn the North hrt.ve one' . my re asons for my condu ct and m man cou ld ffave • m th~> rc•pcct, already far beyond .l ~ole. We of the the Constitution ex) ected, or did ex pect. at the tima ot at any So~thern five new slave-hoidin r~eat the statement of the fac~ ff t~e adopllo n of done that whic h, if ttos~a~e/' o~t of newly ncquireti t~r~itotryte c;~ttlohn of never would 1 JO ramed the Con 1·t . · e ave far; and we ~~.ve ag reed .to slave reprcsentatio~l J u~n ~ad fo~esecn, I hey votin u ~ve now Ill the House of R . ~ ave ytelded thus theregonljo;~ t~i~;,u:er~ question ; and upon e~~e~t7~~~ltves t~venty persons L et me conclude ~ tit~ representation of slaves quesu ons, who ore present this as sh ' . Jere ore, by re marking that ~vh·l crt.se and I ~wmg my own jud crment and .. ' e ~ am willing to than' myself ~~~ Ill ~f be understo~d thnt< I arnos~tJonk .Ill regard to this my own ju~tificati:~: ~ ~e:~1 0~il;~ng to offer it to pt~~ ·:~of~' w~~~~ther e.ee propositiOns :-First ' That w'h en: |
