OCR Text |
Show 141 A POLITICAL TEXT-DOOK FOR 1860. POL1TICR --··- SI:>EEOII O.F .A.BIL'l.TIA .. ~1 LLNUOLN", OF ILLINOl~. Delivm·ed at the Ouope,· Institl(te, .11IuNdrty, Feb. '27, 1800. Ma. PnKSJOENT .AND F~.LLO W-CtTIZil:NS OF NEw· YonK : Tbe facts with which I shall deal this evening arc mainly old and familiar; nor Is there auything new in the geueral use I shall make of them. If t.hcre shall be any novelty it will be in the mode of presenting the fa cts, and th~ inferences and observations following that presentation. In his speech, last autumn, at Columbus, Ohio, as reported in "'l'he New York i'imcs," Senator Douglas saiq: "Our fathers, when they framed the Government under which IVe live, understood this question just as well, and e vcn better than we do now." I fully indorse this, and I adopt it as a text for this discourse. I so adopt it because it furnishes a precise and an agreed starting point for a discussion between Republicans and that wing of Democracy headed by Seuatot· Douglas. It simply leaves the Inquiry : "What was the und en:~tanding those fathct·s had of the question mentioned?" What is the frame of Government under which we live? '!'he answer must be: "The Constitution of the United ~5.'-e3" '!'hat Constitution consists or the original, .:tAO ~d in 11~ 7 (aud uuder which the present Governmen ! trst weuL into open1.tion), aud twelve subscrtucntly frameJ !WlentlmenLs, tile first ten or which were framed in 1780. Who were our fath ers that framed the Constitution? I suppose the " thirty-nine" who signed the original instrument may be fairly called our fathers who framed that part of the present Government. It is almost exactly true to say they f ,·amed it, and it is altogether true to say they fairly represented the opinion an<i sentiment of the whole n:lLion at that Lime. 'l'hcir names, being ftLmiliar to nearly :Lll, and accet;sible to quite all, need not now be repeated I take these "thirty-nine," for the present, as being "our fathers who framed the Government under which we li vc." What is the que ·Lion wlllch, according to the text, those f~th ers HIH1er:;tootl just as well, and even b etter than we do now ? It is this : Docs the proper division of local from federal authority, or anything in the Constitution, forbid our .l<'ederal Government to control as Lo l:ilavery in our Ji'ederal 'l'erritori e.;? Upon this, Do~la.: hol cls the affirmative, and Republican.; the negative. 'l'hi:i alllnnath·e and 1\t:nial fo m an issue ; and this issue - t hi~:~ llUCtH iou--is prcci~ely what the text declares our faLhe ·s UIHI.;n;tood better than we. Let us now inquire whdhcr the " tillrty-nme," or any of them, ever a cted upon thi~ 4ucstion; ancl If they did how they acted upon it- how Lhcy t:Xpre~;sed that l!et: ter understanding. In 1784-three years before the Constitution-the United States then owning the Northwestern 'l'erritory, and no other-the Congress of the Confederation had before them the question of prohibiting Slavery in that Territory ; and four of the "thirty-nine," who A.fLerward framed the Constitution were In that Con~ress, and voted on tha\ question. Or these, Itogc1· l:iherman 'l'homas Miffiin, and Hugh Willlarnson voted for th~ prohibitl.o'? -:-thus showing that, in Lheir understanding, no line dtvtdmg local from federal author ity, nor anything else, properly forbade the l<'etleml Government to control as to Slavery in l<'ederal Territory. 'l'he other of the four-James Mcilenry-voted against U1e p rohibition showing that, for son1e cawse, he thou~ht it improper ~~ vote for it. l n 17.-li, sti ll bef '· e t!1.: 'on,tirucinu, but wll'le the Convention "·a~ iu sc,;~i<•ll f Uln.n:; it, an.! wh,Je the ::-.l or thw l'~:~tern Tcl-rilrlr_v ~till 11 as l ht: rml.r Territory owned l!y the l nilcd !:'t:ttcs the s.unc qu,:,tiun of pro· hil.lit.ing Slavery in the '1\:r ilo1·y a gai11 c.uuc hcfo,e U~ Congre,;~:~ of r he Coufcclcnll ion; and t h ce more of the "thirty-ninc" who af1 t': ward sigued thr; Con~tituti on, were iu that Congress, and I'O~ed 011 tlit: \Jlll'.>l iu ll. '!'hey were \\'illi:Lm illouut , Wi ll ia111 ~·ew and .\ l>r.Lham Baldwin; and r.hey :til vot.rd for 1 he prollii11tion- thus ~how ing that, in their understanding, no l i11~ tlil iding local from federal authority, nor anything l'l.:li:l, properly forbids the l•'cdcral GOI'el'lllllcut to eulll.rol as to 'lavery in federal territory. This time the prohibition uecame a law, being part of what is uow well kuowu as the Ordinance of '87. The question of federal control or ...Ia Ve "y in the Ter· rltories, seems not to have been direct ly hdore the Oonvention which framed the origiual Con~titution; and h ence It is not recorded that the " thirty-nine," or any of them, while engaged on that instrument, expressed any opinion on that precise question. In 1789, by the first Congres~ which sat untlcr the Oonstitutlon1 an act was passed to cnforc.: the Ordinan ~-e of' 7, lncluuing the prohibition of Slavery in the Northwestern 'l'erritory. 1'he bill for thit' act was reported by one of tho "thirty-nine," Thomas l<' it:r.simmon;;, then a member of the House of Represcn ta ti ves fc om l'ennsyl· vania. It went through a ll its stages wi: hout a word of oppollition, and finally passed both braucht>s without yeas and nays, which is equivalent to a unanimous passage. In this Congress there were sixteen of tM "thirty· nine" fathers who framed the original Uons\itl)o tion. 1'hey were John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman, Wru. S. J ohnson, Roger Sherman, Robert Morris, 'l'homas l<'itzsimmons, William F ew, Abraham Dt~ltln in, Jtufus K ing, William PILtterson, George Clymer, !{ichanl Ba.!r sctt, George Read, Pierce Butler, Daniel Carroll, James Madison. 'l'hi!! shows that, In their understa.n,Jing, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything ln the Constitution, properly forbade Oougre:;s to prohibi• Slavery iu the fed eral territory; cl::1C both thdr fidelity to conect principle, and their oath to supp,>t't the Con· stitution, would have constrained them Lo oppose tha prohibition. Again, Ueorge Washington, another of the "thirtynine," was then Presideut of the United 'tates, and, as such, approved and t'igncd the bill, thus complering ILl validity a!! a law, and thus showiug that, in hi~ u u~erstanding, no line d iv, ding local from fcdcr,tl authonty, nor anything in tl~t! Consti tution, foruade the ~·edcrlll GovernmeuL, to control a.l to l:ila very iu ferl t:. al territory. No gre;~t while niter the adopt:on of the original Constitu tion, North Carolina ceded to the l<'ed~ral Government the country now con~titu ting the State of 'l'enooessee; and a few years later Geor3ia cedctl th!U which now constitute:; the State!'! of l\l i'l.~is:iippi and Alabama. Jn both deeds or cession It was m:1ue a condition by the ceding t11tes tlt:.~ot the l<'ed.:ml <J overnmen' should n ot prohiuit Slavtry in t.he cedt.!tl country. Besi de~ t his, i;la ver.v was then act ualiJ' in the ccd~ country. Uude•· these circumstanc e::~, Oongress, on taking ch:\r~e of t he:;e couutri e:~, d1tl not al.>solutely prohihit Slavery wilhin thc1u. Uut they ditl lntt~rfel' with it - take con t rol of it- even Lhm·tl, to a oorta 1 e~tent. In 179 _, Cong e~s orgauiud the 'l'erritorr IJ· lllli!Sissippi. ln the nct of organiz 1L:on they prohlbi.ted tho briu~riug of Slu.vc:; Into thc Tc. ritory, from any plac6 VIEWS OF "TilE FATHERS" 0~ SLAVERY PROUifHTION. the United States, by fin e, and giving freedom ~rl\hout brought. 'l'his act JlUi:!Sed bOI h brancheS Of to slaves s~vlthout yeas and n!l.ys. In tlmt (Jong~·el3s Cong~~s::l e of the •• thirt.y-uiuc" who framed tire orlgtnal C~~~tit~~~ion. They ~~ere John Langdon, George ltead ind Abraham Ua ldwm. '!'hey all, proball!y, voted. ,for 1 Certainly they would have placed thet.r oppo:nt~o n ~ it u 1011 record, if, in their u•~derstundmg, an.y l111e di 'din~ local from federal authonty, or a nytl11ng 111 the c:~stitution, properly forbade the .l<'c~eral Govermuent \0 ootrol as to ~lavery In federal terntory. t 180!! the b'e!leral Uovcrnn1ent. !Jurchased the Loulsl - n ur'ry Our former terr il orial acquisitions CI~IIIC ana cou · · L 1 · r erLain of our own States; but tl11s ou t~mna rom trcy was a cqui red from a. for~:·: 1gn nat1· on. 11 1 180"'' ~ O~Ul~ress gave 1L 'J'err\to rial organization to Lhat part Ol It 1 hich uow constitutes t.he State of LouiHi<LIHL. New Or~;ans, lying within til at part., was an old and comptu·at. i •ly large city. l 'hcrc were other co u slden~ble to1vns ~~~ settlcmcutt!, un1l Slavery w:ts extcutnv<:ly a1~d ~horoughly intl!nuingled with the. t~eo~le. Congress d1d not, in the 'I'arltol'i:d Act, prolllln.t t5~a very; ?ut t_l~~y did intcrferl) w1th it-t11ke ccmtrol of 1lr-m a 1u or~ ma~ ke~l nod t:xtcnsiv.: wny than the.y did in tl~e case of ~I Jssis:~IJliJl. '!'he substance of the provisiOn thercm mttde, 111 relatwu \0 slaves, was : . · 1 .,, · First. '!'hat no slave should be 1mported lllto t 1e ~et-ritory from foreign p:Hts. Second. 'l'hnt no slave should be carried into It who had been ln1por 1ed Into the United States since the first day of May, 1793. Third. '!'hat no slnvc shall be carried into it except by the owner and fot· his own use as a settlt::r; the pcunlt.y In all the ~ascs being a tine upon the viola tor of the law, and freedom to tho shwe. This act also was 1ms11ed without yeas and nays. In the Oougreri~ which paR!:!ed it, there wcr~ two of t ~\C "thirty-nine." 'l'hq were Abraham Dald wm and J O?·~than Uaytr> n. A~ stated In the case of Mississippi, 1t IS probable they both voted for it.. They would not . have llllowed it to p1~ss without recording their opposit1on to It If in their undcrlltanding, it violated either the line p;oper dividing local from federal authority or any provision of the Conslit ution. In 1810-21) c:une and passed the Missouri quest ion. Wany votes' were taken, by yeas and nays, in both bmocl:e!:! of .Congress, upon the. varl~us ,phases of ~ h: seneml c;ucst10n. 'l'wo of the" tlnrty-nmo - Rufus I<:mg !lnd Charles Pinckney-were members of th~t .~ong res!:! . Mr. King ~te 1tclily voted for Slavery prohtbttton a1~ fl against all compromises, while 1\11·. P inckney as stel~tllly voted ag•Linst 'lavery prohibition :wd against ;Lll compromises. By till:~ llrr. K ing showed that., in his unde.rstandiug, no line dividing local from fed eral nuthonty, nor anything in the Constitution, was violated by Congress prohibitinl( ' lavery in federal territory; while M.r. PIII C~ney, by his vote~, showed that In hi!:! undcrstand.m.g the1e was suflicient reason for opposing s uch proh11.l1Lion in th&t case. The cn~cs I have mentioned are the only acts of the "thirry-nine," or of 1Lny of them, upon the direct issue, which 1 have been able to discover. To enu111erate the persons who thus acted, as being four in 1784, three in 17~7, seventeen in 17 9, tllree in 1.79 , two in l 04, ancl two in 18t9-20--there would be thirtyone of them. Hut thl~ would he counting J ohn Lang1lon, Roger Shennan, Wil lit~m l<'e,v, Rufus K ing, and George Read, each twice, and Abra.luun llalclwin four times. '!'he true number or those of the ·• thirty-nine'' whom I have shown to llO.Ve acted upon the question, which, by the text they understood better than we, is twenty-three, leaving sixteen not shown to have acted upon it in any way. from federal authority, or some provision or princi.ple of the Const.itu~ion stood in ~he way i or they may, wtthou\ any such questidn ha vc voted ngainst the p rohibition, on what appeared to' them to be sumcicnL gro undtl of expediency. No one who has sworn to support the Com;titution can conscientiously vote for what he understands to be dn unconstitutlo n~tl measure, however cxpedi.:~1t ht may think it; but one may and . ou~ht to .vote aga1nst. a measure which he dccmH constitUtional, 1f, at the sa1.1e time, he deemM it inexpedient. It, therefore, W~Uid be unsafe to t1et down even the two who voted ag~mst the probiuition, as lutvlng doue liO bccau!le, in the1r under· standing, an.v proper dividion of local from federal authority, or anything in the ConHtitution for.bade l~e Federal UoveilliHcllL to ~:o11Lro l as to ::;lavery 111 f.:dcral terrltot·y. The remaining sixteen ,,f I he "thirty-nin_c," so far "-8 I have discovered, have lett no recorrl of thell· unders1 :4u.ding upon the direct question of the ~ontrol of 'lavery 1n the federal territories. But there 1s much rea~on to believe that their un <icr~:~tantling ·upon that que t~on would not have a ppeared diU ·rc11t from that of their t wentythree compeers had it hc,·u manifested at all. l<'or the puq>~Se of adh,·nug rigid ly to t!le text, I h~ve purposely omitted wiH~ tever under tandm~ 1~1ay. have been manifested, by :my person, however d1stmgu~sl~cd, other than the thirty-nine fathers wllo framccl the ongw_al Constitut ion · and for the :-.ame reason, 1 have :tis~ ottllttcd whatevc1~ und ~r!:!tanding may ha1'e been mamfel3tt:!l by any of the "thirty nine" even, on any other piluse of the general question of 'lavery. Jf we shoullllook into their acts and dcclnralions on tho!:!e o_ther phas ell, ,t~s tho fo reign sl ave-tmd~, and the uloral1ty aJ.td JH~llc~ ~~ Slavery generally lt would appea r to us th.Lt on .the rl1 rect quc~;tion of 1 fcdemi couLrol of ~lav ery in kder,LI territories, tire sixteen, if t.hey hll(l actecl at all,, :vou ld p robably have acted j ust as the twenty-thl ce d1~l. Among that sixteen we1·e scveml of t!le mo~t noted. aut~slavery men of those tinleS as Dr. l•ra_nklm , Ale x,LUuer llamilton and Gou vcmcur :ll orl'i~-wln l c thcnl 11 ,t'l uot one now known to have b('tn otherwisc, unless 1L lllay be J ohn Jtutledge of t:iouth Carolina. . . , '!'he sum or' the whole b, th:Lt. of our ".th rt,Y-1111\C ( tJ ers who framed tho origin:d Con~titutwu, l\1 cuty~ 1e~:L clear majority of the whole-certainly un,JersLo.od ~lmt no proper divh.ion of local frolll federal an~ l~o~•.t.~ an )art of the Ctmstilut ion, fo rbatle the ~ cd~ 1 ·~ n~rven~m~~t to control ::lbti'Cry in the federal Lcr.ltllr.'es, ~hile all the re~t probabl.v lmd the Hame unl~erslandlllg. S ch unque5tiOII'lbly was the underst:ttHhng of our f·~thdrs who .fran:ed tile origin al ConstitutiOn; and. lhc t~xt allirms that they untler~too d the quc~ti<Jil !J etter tht~t"'=~ f'Lr I have heen con~idel lng the under~ll~n~nf Of th; quc~ti~n IIHtllifestcrl by the f<lllllCr:; Of Lite Ol'lt;l lll: Con titution. In and by_ the <~ riginal h.l ·tr u•n cl~L, '\l~tl~~;l ~ was provided fO I' amentllllg tL; anJ, ,ls l tllll\J .~~ \1\ic{l I h re ·cnt frame of Gov\·rnlucn un e svteatl~~~ ~o~ f:ts of that original, and twelve amend:~tu ryt 'a rticles framc<l and udopte d 1:.1 1n<·e. ']'ho·s e who. II <JW. IIIS.·I !' that federal contl·ol of ::il:Lvcry in federal. te.r~:;toltcsvl~i~c~~; lates the Constl· lu t"t on, pom t ll ~>• tO Lhe I lH O1V 'I.S IOt· il JI th<'" i h viohtes. and as UIH el ,lll< ' J ~:~~;uJ;;o~~~lr~~i~~~ns it~ tl;e~c a',•~end~ltor_~,~~~~ i~l~~~·1 t:~ n ot In the origmal lllStrumcnt. I he ... up! c I r'fUl D d tt c·tse plant themselves upon t •e I ~::cnd';~ent,~~hich \>r~vides thaL "110 perso~\~~~~~~. b1~1;1~0 . d r e ·ty without due process 0 ' g~~~~toroDo~tr~~s 'and his pcculi :u· !Ldll~l'C!ltlt~nlg~lt\llll;tt~~~~~~~~ tl e t enth amendment, Jll ovl I speolwveesr s unpootn g 1 ..a ~n t e d "" y the Constitution, arc re~cnr.:d tu 1 " th~~~~ttf~ ;~e~l~L~l~~~~~~~t~~~~~e~~oe ~~:~J~~~11~:c~;t~ we1;fL~~;f~~c_! b) t he'first Congress whic!l bat u~l.der th;· ·t ~~~tuly menthe identical <?ougre~s ';';1.~:t\~s~~~. ~1\1l~ ~~Y in the norLIItioned, enforcmg the pt o ll : lO . s it the SlllllC Congrc::~:o, western 'l'erriLory. 'ot on y wa. individulll mt•n who, but they were the identical, sallie . l".tl llin tl;c :.e8- at the same sess.t on, an d IL t the same t· tnlc ·o' "'res5 toWlll d slon hlld under cousiuemtlon, tLllil Ill p o!lntl this act mat:u·ity' these Constitutional ;L,':~~~:tl~:.tcl; ~~~~ n:Ltion then prohibiting Si;Lvcrr in. a.ll tl.H! 1 ~~imeni.~ were in Lrouucell Owned The CousututtOnal ,une f ·11 , tile Ordtn•wce before,' and passe d •,1 f tel· the act ell> OernCtIl enbc y of the a' c ~ to' of 'S7; so that ~~urlng U~l., wl~~\~siitu\ional amondmenLs enforce the ordinance, lO were also pending . i . . 11 or sovenly-six mem- _lltlre, then, we have twenty-three out of our" t h irtynme" fathers who framed the G-overnment under which we live, who have upon their official responsibility and their corporal oat 1 hs acted upon the very que:~tion which the tt'xt atlirm~ they' •• understood just li.S well, 11.nd even better th ;Ln we do now ;" and twenty-one of them-a clear majority of the whole "thirty-nine "-so acting upon it aR to make tllem guilty of gross political impropriety, and willful perjury if in their u nderstanding, any proper division between idcu.'! and federal n.uthorlt.y, or anything In thtl Constitution they ha<l made themsd ves, and sworn \o suppo1·t, forh;ule t.he Fctlel'tl.l Government to control as to Slavery In the federal territories. Thus the twentyOut: actt:d; o.ncl, as actions speak louder than wordd, 110 action~ under such re pon ibility Rpt:!Lk still lo ucler. 'l'wo ot the t1venty-three voted against Congressional }irohibitiou of lavery in the federal 'l'erritorie:1 In the lnltanccs in which they acted upon the que!!tion. Dut for wbat reason they so voted is not known. They may have !lone so because they thought a proper division o! local 'l'hat Cougrcs:s: consl~t 1:l~o ~~: .. ::ncr~ uf Lllc ungi nul UOit· hers, Including ~lXIeeu of! 1 . ' 111 .. ",niucntly our fa tht:rs . '· •fvre~t· Lt cc wc1c ~.:u ~ titU IIOn , ILR vC , • ' f i , thiVcrlllllellt und~l' will!;1 l we \vho fmmeLI thtLt p.u t ~~ ltlc I '.L~ f<>rhidtling the l<'odera.l live, which. I~ J)UIV .c ta\11~ ·ry' in we Vederal Tcrri~oriea. G o vcr UIU~O L to cunll o ~ 1\ c 10 |