[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 Federalist says:
[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 assumed in 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."