OCR Text |
Show 220 'rUE MISSOUHI QUESTION. will; nor did ho believe thnt either of those Stnies wonld now acknowledge that they hn.d not the equn.l right with any other State of the Union to call a convention, and 80 alter their constitution as to n.dmit slavery; and if they hnd this right, the operation of the ordinance upon them as a. tn Lc was void aud of no avail. rrhc Ordinance of 17 87, then, waR a dead leiter, so far ns it had been resorted to as furnishing nny explanation of tho powers of Congress under the federal Constitution, un<l it wns eqnally inapplicable, us precorlcnt, in relation to ~fissouri, because, at no period of the territorial government hn.d any portion of its provi, ionS been C'Xt llUCd to thn.t tcr~ ritory, save only those principles that had b en incorporatc(1 into the net of the 4th of Jnne, 1 02, when the second gmdc of government had been conferred upon Mi ·souri. * * * * * * A member from Ohio (Mr. Brnsh) had contended that I under the 8th section of the Constitution that gn.ve Con-g, ·ess the power "to provide for the common defense and general welfare," they could impose the reRtricLion on Missouri, because he hnd assumc<.l it for granted, that, to limit the negroes to certain ln.titudes, and to confine them within certain limits, would be promoting the common defense nud general welfare. Now, what would co ntribute to the common d fen se and general welfare was mere matter of opinion, and it was not always that tho means nsecl produced the end; a mistake in tho one was sure to defeat tho other, and it appeared to Mr. S. much more reasonable to suppose that the common dcf nse was weakened, and the o-et1cral welfare much more endangered, by confining the slaves within certain districts, condensing their population, aud enn.bling them to act in c~nc?J't, ~han to spread them over a vast extent of territory, d1stnbutwg them in small proportions among the whites, THE MISSOUlU QUE~rriON. 221 ttnd tlms prevent tho probability of in surrceLion, from a want of capacity to concentrate their forces. If, thon, an occn. .- ;ional majority of Congress had tho right, under this or any other clause of the Constitution, to say tbat, in their opinion, it promoted the common defcn ·o u.ntl general welfare, that sln.vcry should not exist in certain ~taLes of the Uuion; a counter majority, at any otllcr time, under the same clause of tho Constitution, would havo tho power to declare tlJat it. comported with tllcir views of common defcn HO and gcncrn.l wc1fu.rc that it should exist in all the SLates, and that tho non-slavcholding States should admit Hlavcs within their lJorders, under pain of suspension or expulsion from the Union. 1Iow would gentlemen then stn.nd afl'ected? vVould they not then declare against this mi ghty power, exercised upon mere spcculn.tion, whether this or that measure promoted tho common dcfemw un<l general welfare of the nation I In point of fact there waH little, if o.ny, difference Let ween the taking away, or forcing upon, any person or people that which they did or diu not wo.nt; each was equally o. violn.lion of their rights. Mr. Tucker, of Virginia, snicl : PuLLing aside the feel-ings of the people of Missouri, is iL not o. solid ohjcetion to this restriction, that your power to impose iL is doubLful and conic ted ? llowcvcr thorou ghly gentlemen on tho other side mn.y be persuaded that Congress possesses this power, they must know that a large portion of the United States arc as thoroughly per. uacl c<1 that it docs not; that, on this question there is entire mtanimity in the slu.vcholdinfr SLn.tcs; and that, with all the motives to n.n opposite unanimity in the other Stn.l.c , th ·rc is among them, a. well us among their rcprcsen LaLi vcs in this Ilonsc, eonsidcrulJ1e diversity of opinion. They must also recollect, that, though these circum-stances do not produce conviction, they must produce somo |