Newspaper Page Text
K N
J ' \\> UiOAi&i
SOUTHERN
RECORDER.
VOL. I.
MILLEDGEVILLE, TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 1820.
No. 4.
PUBLISHED WEEKLY,
(OK TUESDAYS)
nr s. gra vtl iyd tf n. m on me,
JLI THREE DOLLARS, IK ADVANCE, OR
TOUR DOLLARS AT THE EXPIRATION
OF THE YEAR.
Advertisements conspicuously inscr-
at the customary rates.
DEBATE IN THE SENATE,
flft UXIOX of MAIXE 8,- MISSOURI.
(Continued.)
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 1ft.
Mr. Walker, of Georgia, said the subject
under consideration had been already so
much discussed, that he had not the vanity
to believe he could offer any thing new to
the consideration of the Senate. Hut re
presenting ns lie did, a state in which slave
ry is tolerated, it might possibly lie constru
ed a dereliction of duty, and an abandon
ment of the. sacred interests of those he re
presented, were he to remain silent on the
present occasion. Nothing, however, said
he but an imperious and irresistible sense of
duty could have induced me to depart from
the resolution I had at first taken, not to
trespass upon the time of the Senate by any
observations of mine upon the bill now in
progression. And really, sir, it is with a de
gree of unfeigned reluctance, I have risen, to
oppose my opinions to those of gentlemen
of so much more experience than myself,
and for whose opinions I cannot but enter
tain tiie most profound respect.
We have already heard, sir, as well from
the honorable gentleman from Pennsylva
nia, who first addressed you, as from the
honorable gentleman from New-Hampshire,
who closed his remarks last evening, that
the subject under consideration is an impor
tant one. In this sentiment I perfectly ac
cord.
Perhaps, sir, no subject which has agitated
the councils of the United States of Ameri
ca, from the formation of our government
down to the present period, has been preg
nant with more important consequences
than the one now under discussion. It is a
rubject, sir, which has excited not only the
deep interest of those who are to decide up
on it, but one whirh is agitating this conti
nent from one extreme to the other. And
whether we turn our eyes to the cast or to
(talents, of courage, of morality, and of reli
gion; and, Irom the observations of the hit*
norable gentleman, one would be led to be
lieve, that all the cardinal virtues wither at
the approach of this accursed monster sla
very. In what a deplorable condition would
be the inhabitants of the slave holding states
il the. honorable gentleman's speculations
were history ! Fortunately, however, they
have their existence only in a fervid imagi
nation. °
But, dreading lest he should not be able
to carry conviction to our understandings,
which lie must of course have considered
extremely blunt and impenetrable, the ho
norable gentleman endeavors to make an at
tack upon our fears, in which he considers
us perhaps much more assailable, anil with
all the Christian meekness and charity ima
ginable, we are cautioned to beware bow we.
encourage slavery ; fur that the, vengeance
of an angry God will not sleep forever.
The honorable gentleman’s zeal seems to
have transported him beyond the bounds of
just calculation. Our apprehensions are not
so easily excited. For whilst we bow with
great humility and reverence before the ma
jesty of heaven—and, on our bended knees,
would deprecate the wrath of God, we arc
not prepared to consider the honorable gen
tleman as one of his vicegerents.
Mr. President, it h far from my intention
to recriminate; Icame, not here to offend or
be offended. If it will be a gratification to
the honorable gentleman’s feelings, I am
willing to admit, that the inhabitants of that
section of the country from whence he
comes, are all high minded and honorable
men; that they are intelligent, brave, virtu
ous, moral, religious, and patriotic. But, I
must take tile liberty of reminding the ho
norable gentleman, that these arc not sec
tional qualities : and that if he will give him
self the trouble to consul the page of histo
ry, he will learn, that those virtues are alike
the growth of every part of this extensive,
prosperous and happy country ; and I trust
I shall r ’ “ ‘
not give offence, by declaring it, as
my firm conviction, that the inhabitants of
the slave holding states will not suffer by a
just comparison with those of any other sec
tion of the Union
Without intending, sir, to make invidious
comparisons, or, in the slightest degree, to
disparage other parts of the country, I would
ask, where will you find a greater degree of
pure and unadulterated patriotism—where
ill you find a greater devotion to the true
the west, to the north or to th3 south.|jC«s.it s’oi vfu‘ : SnWr faa:..—“srw,..;!;'’ luh i-
r * ‘ ' T free!
nance,* as if, upon the decision of this ques-
tion, depended the peace and harmony of
this union.
Sir, the resolutions and instructions of dit-
ftrent state legislatures—the petitions of ve
ry many assemblages of citizens in various
parts of the Union, with which your table is
crowded—proclaim, in language not to be
misunderstood, the denn-toned feeling to
which the discujiioa of this question has gi
yen rise. ... ,
Mr. President, I have heard, with much
»egret, the sentiments which have been ex
pressed in this debate. They evince a de
gree of sectional feeling which I had not cx-
iiccted to find within these walls. I had in-
pected to find within these
(Viged the hope, sir, that, with the ctose of
the late war, all party animosity had suosi-
lied, and that our political barque, having
ridden out the tempest of faction, had been
safely anchored in the haven of peace. But
a state of tranquillity, 1 apprehend, is mcom-
patible with the nature of man. Scarcely
lad the storm subsided—scarcely hail we
shaken hands as brothers—when a new
bource of discontent has been discovered
and another, and much more important dis
flection of party than any which has preceu
edit, is about to be established.
The feelings of humanity and benevolence
have taken such complete possession of cer
tain sections of our country, that every other
consideration is made to bend to the irresis
tible inclination to ameliorate the condition
of slaves. A spirit of opposition, a line of
demarkation is sought to be established, be
tween thesiavc-holding,and non-slave-hold
ing states. And “ slavery or not,” seems
destined to be the watch word of party.
I, for one, Mr. President, deprecate this
otate of things. I am not among those who
believe that party dissentions are essential to
tiie health of the body politic. I delight, sir.
to inhale the breeze which brings with it har
mony and peace. But, when other senti-
nts prevail, it is not mv nature to yield to
test is preferable to submission. I feel it my
duty, therefore, to meet this question at the
threshold—I fear there is too much reason
to consider it the inception of a policy whose
tendency may be to dismember this Union.
And the alarming doctrines we yesterday
heard, have certainly not tended to allay my
apprehensions.
It will not be expected, I trust, that I
should follow the honorable gentlemen who
advocate the amendment, over all the ground
they have occupied in debate; for this, I
have neither inclination nor ability, and were
they both in tny possession, still, the effort
might, perhaps, by some, be thought unno-
ressary.
With the historical sketches which have
™ :(, n given us, of the early settlement of this
country, and of the dangers and difficulties
which were encountered by our forefathers,
m this perilous enterprise, 1 have been nmu-
aad instructed; I had almostsaul, I have
been charmed by their novelty; but, I must
be pardoned for saying, I cannot perceive
their relevancy to the subject under discus
sion.
The honorable gentleman from N. Jlamp-
s * l,Pe , whose arguments I cannot hope to
r cach, much less to answer, has employed a
considerable portion of a very long and a ve-
r )’ able speech, in venting anathemas against
'nVZ* and has been pleased to draw apa-
ra ,l between the inhabitants of the differ
wd sections of this country, (but with what
degree of accuracy others must j
,. j judge,; in
l bus not failed to give a very deri-
preference to those who inhabit states in
Wntch slavery is not tolerated ; and in the
Plenitude of his charity nnd benevolence,
las ascribed this vast and essential differ
ence to the influence of slavery. To the
influence fa ggcribed, a tlestitgUcfi of
first fanned the sacred flams of freedom on
this continent? A Virginian—a native of a
slave holding state. Who penned the im
mortal declaration of Independence ? A na
tive of a slave-holding state. Who led your
revolutionary armies to battle nnd to victo
ry ? A native of a slave-holding state.—
Who first agitated the question, which even
tuated in the formation of our inestimable
constitution ? Inhabitants of the slave-hold
ing states. Who was first called by the una
nimous voice of his countrymen to preside
over the destinies of the new government ?
A native of a slave-holding state. Who now
conducts our political barque w ith so much
honor to himself and benefit to the nation."
A native of a slave-holding state.
But the honorable gentleman from New-
Hampshire has farther told us, that the in
fluence of slavery has a tendency to make
men tyrannical and despotic. In this the
experience of the country is against him. In
no pan of this widely extended government
have the pure principles of democracy been
so much cherished, as among the inhabitants
of the slave-holding states; and these yield
to none in the practice of benevolence and
humanity.
We are next told, that most of the catns-
trophies of the late war, and particularly the
burning of the capital, may be ascribed to
the same detested influence. 1 regret, sir,
that our minds have been brought to dwell
upon the subject. Over some of the events
of the late war I would most cheerfully have
drawn the curtain of oblivion. The fair page
of our history has been blackened, and our
country in some measure disgraced, by them.
But tilts events which I should bo most anx
ious to forget, sir, were not those which
transpired in the slave-holding states. Some,
which were calculated to make the check of
patriotism burn with shame, had their exis
tence in a northern latitude, for beyond the
influence of slavery. I lorbear, sir, to parti
cularize, from an unwillingness to arouse
feelings which are slumbering in lorgrtiul-
ncss of these melancholy disasters. But it
must be recollected that the tide ol war rol
led in upon us one disaster after another, in
dreadful succession. I would ask the hono
rable gentleman who cheeked the progress
of this tide, turned its course, and threw it
back upon the foe ? Who achieved the ever
memorable victory ot Orleans, which has
shed such a lustre around the American
arms? Soldiers from the slave-holding
St But I will not dwell upon this part of the
subject, sir; there is nothing in it calculated
to gratify my own feelings, or to interest
those of the Senate.
I |
moreimport. . ~ *
tlemen, founded upon the celebrated ord
nance of 1787, the constitution ot the United
States, and the treaty of cession. And 1
flatter myself, I shall be able to establish, a<
far as negative proof can possibly extend,
that, from neither of these fruitful sources,
can be derived the authority to impose the
contemplated restriction upon the good peo-
le of Missouri.
In the investigation of this subject, then -
fore, I propose to shew—That the amend
ment offered by the honorable pcntleinan
from Pennsylvania is unauthorized by the
ordinance «f ’87 : that it is unauthorized by
the constitution: and, that it is cxprossl*
forbid by the terms of the treaty by which
the territory in question has been acquired.
The elucidation of this subject must neces
sarily be somewhat dry and uninteresting;
for ‘in the dcvelopement of constitutional
principles, w* arc not permitted to wander m
the w ide fields of rhetoric, to gather flow ers
wherewith to decorate our path
has been so emphatically stiled, by the hono
rable gentleman from Pennsylvania, the im
mortal ordinance.
A brief history of the circumstances which
led to, and were attendant upon, the passage
and adoption of this ordinance, will, I trust,
justify the opinion I have formed, that it is
an instrument not entitled to the high com
mendation which has been bestowed upon it.
In the year 1780, Congress recommended
to the stutes having claims to waste and un
appropriated lands in the Western country,
a liberal cession to the United States of a
portion of their respective claims, for the
common benefit; the territory to be thus ce
ded to be formed into distinct republican
states, having the same rights of sovereignly,
freedom and independence, with other slate’s.
In 17R1 the state of New-York limited and
defined her western boundary, and ceded
and relinquished to such states as then were,
or should thereafter become parties to the
articles of confederation, all her right, title,
and claim to lands and territories to the
northward and westward of the boundary
thus limited and defined.
In 1781 Virginia ceded to the U. States
her claim to the territory north-west of the
river Ohio.
In 1785 Massachusetts ceded and relin
quished all claim to the territory within her
charter, west of a particular line mentioned
in her deed of cession.
In 17HB Connecticut ceded her claim to
the territory called the Western llcserve.
It must lie remarked, Mr. President, that
not one of these deeds of cession contained a
proviso or condition that slavery should he
inhibited in the territory thus transferred to
the United Slates.
The praise, therefore, which the honora
ble gentleman from Pennsylvania bestowed
upon Virginia for her pliilanthropky in in
terdicting slavery in the territory north-west
uf thu river Ohio, was altogether undeserved.
In 1787 Congress passed the celebrated
ordinance about which so ii uch lias been
said. This ordinance is entitb fl, “ An ordi
nance for the government of the territory of
the United States north-west of tile river
Ohio;” and, among other tilings, ordains
and declares certain articles of compact be
tween the original states and the people and
states of the said territory, and forever to re
main unalterable, except by common con
sent: the 0th of which articles of compact
declares, “That there shall be neither slave
ry nor involuntarv servitude in the said ter;
omesifivac^.^t^^iiisrahe
ordinance of ’87 ; but said nothing about
any of the other articles.
In August 17811, the form of government
having been altered, and the articles ol con
federation having been exchanged for our
present constitution, Congress passed a law,
adapting the ordinance of ’87 to the new go
vernment.
Having thus, sir, in a very cursory manner,
adverted to the different deeds ofecssion and
thu acts of Congress, in relation to the terri
tory so ceded, 1 will proceed, in a still more
cursory manner, to state soineofthc reasons
which have produced a conviction upon my
mind that the Oth Section of this immortal
Ordinance. U|xm which the gentleman from
Pennsylvania relies as hi* authority to im
pose tfio contemplated restriction upon the
stale of Missouri, cannot, anil will not, sup
port the mighty fabric w hich has been at
tempted to be reared upon it. I contend
that the Gib section was unauthorized hy
the J, eds of cession by which Congress ac
quired the territory, for the government (if
which the ordinance was passed; these
deeds having embraced no Condition or sti
pulation to that effect, and nut haring trans
ferred to Congress any power fur that pur
pose.
It. was unauthorized by the articles of con-
ranee that there would bn no attempt to in
hibit slavery. Louisiana, a part of the terri
tory acquired by the same treaty, and at tlic
same time, has been admitted into the Uni
on, without such restriction. An act of Con
gress, passed for the government of Missou
ri, contains no such restriction. Every new
state which has been admitted into the Uni
on, (with the exception of those formed of
the. territory north-west of the river Ohio,
and which were embraced by the ordinance
of ’87,) have been admitted without such
restriction. I would remind the honorable
gentleman that Vermont, Kentucky, Ten
nessee, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama,
had no such restriction imposed upon them
at the time of their admission to the federal
embrace. I would then ask the gentleman,
sir, whether Missouri may not well complain
of the attempt to impose such restriction at
this late period? 1 think she well may. But
the gentlemen themselves seem to doubt the
authority oftlie ordinance, und resort to the
constitution.
I will proceed, sir, to an examination of
those parts of the constitution from which
gentlemen conceive they derive the authori
ty to impose the contemplated restriction.—-
But, before I do, permit me to premise,
“ That the powers not delegated to the U.
States by the constitution, nor prohibited by
it to the states, are reserved to the states re
spectively, or to the people.”
In approaching the constitution of my
country, sir, I proceed with a kind of defe
rential awe: ’Us an hallowed i
instrument,
with which I am almost afraid to trust my
self.
The grant of powers to Congress by the
constitution, are embraced in the 8th section
of the 1st article; hy which Congress sbull
have power to lay and collect taxes, to bur
row money, to regulate commerce, to estab
lish an uniform rule of naturalization, to coin
money, to promote the progress of science
and useful arts, to constitute tribunals inferior
to the. Supreme Court, to declare war, S:c.
Among the powers enumerated in this sec
tion, the one contended for will not be found.
But the gentlemen inform us that the pow
er is derived from the fllh section of the same
article, or from the 3d section oftlie -ith ar
ticle ; but from which of these sections tlu:
advocates of this measure have not exactly
agreed among themselves. That it cannot
be derived from leoth, I presume, must be
admitted : for it would be doing injustice to
the.JUrtlfwUHL iuh’llkj^Jyed two diutim-t Hie-
tumsTTrirfrWrefif articles of that instrument,
to convey the same power. And this diver
sity of opinion, among such able expositors
of the constitution, renders it at least doubt-
words. And this without in the slightest de
gree touching the intercourse between the
different members of the federal family—to
authorise an Interference wiih which, under
this section, could not have been in the con
templation of the framers of our constitu
tion. For 1 can scarcely believe thut, nt the
time of its adoption, it was anticipated by
imy our, that the period would ever arrive
when the Congress of the United States
would undertake to restrain the “migration”
of the inhabitants of the union from one state
to another—or (which amounts to thu same
thing) would prevent them from carrying
their property with them when they did mi
grate.
But fortunately there is a practical com
mentary upon this subject. The Congress
oftlie United States, in March 1807, in pass
ing an act to carry this provision of the con
stitution into effect, or rather in the exercise
of a right Impliedly given to them by this
clause—have virtually given the construc
tion for which 1 contend. They prohibited
the importation of slaves from abroad, or
the bringing of them to the United States
from the dominions of any foreign state im
mediately adjoining the United States, un
der severe (penalties. But so far from at
tempting to prohibit the removing of slave*
from one state to another, they have by ilia
other property belonging to the United
States, 1 should hardly have supposed, if I
had not seen otherwise, that it would have
been eeriouslv contended that this clausa
conveyed to Congress the power of impos
ing a restriction upon a state applying for
admission into the union. The words of th«
section appear clearly to my view, to huve
contemplated only a temporary nmngo-
mrnt in r< iation to the territory and proper
ty of the United State*, and did wit look to
an interference with state righto. Nothing
more, I apprehend, was intended by this sec
tion, but that the Congress should ha author
ized to extend the fostering arm of govern
ment for the protection [V>t those infant es
tablishments. Tnufford them nurture, nod
to cherish them, until warned and animated
0
by the genial influence of parental care, they
maturiCF. and should
same act regulated coastwise the manner of
this intercourse. Ro far then, as the expe
rience of government reflects light upon this
subject, its tendency is to illumine the path
I have taken in tlie exposition of this section
oftlie constitution. And although I would
not pretend that wc arc bound by what our
vrectecessors have done in this regard—yet
[ trust the force of a good example, will not
be altogether disregarded.
Having, as 1 think, shewn that the power
sought to lie exercised is not legilin, tidy
derivable from the Oth section of the firs
tide of the constitution, I will now proc
to an examination of the third section of t.
sinmld iiaYfl grown to i
have hucome capable uf aMHlring the Im
posing attitude nnd dignity' ftf states; at
v\ Inch time Congress, by the provisions oQho
other clause of the section, were' authorized
to admit them into the union, andithe nece*^
sitv for those temponuT rulfci and v~
filiations would of courstiPeoulfc
But if this course of reasoning fa'dd, by
" ' be thought fallacious, itsurekv Jbovm
a j . rates for jjj^jmpewtiaa ras-
-4
t*
r.etior,
■ slavery
whjfcU-
ia a ne? regulation fqr ' 'tWTdrtyery fr.
ijiirsth As far, sir, aarwe are ligi, by’ the
i
fur removed, inform us xV At such restriction
is not needful, and that • ' ’torfUvtcsirmis
none, should be ini jwsed—w- '.king o have
the prl» ilege of regulating their intiqaljpp-
prtntteC*-.^—t
4th article, w ith a view to ascertain v> hether
honorable gentlemen have been more fortun
ate in the selection of this section—from
whence to derive the power contended for.
Tile section is us follows: “New states
“ may be admitted by the Congress into this
“Union, but no new state shall lie formed
“ or erected within the jurisdiction of any
“ other state; our any slate he formed by
“the junction of two or more states, or parts
“ of states, without the consent of the Le
lice as in liicir judgwivent shall best piminuMn .
their happiness and welfare: a privilege, Mr.
President, which I think ought to bo accord
ed to them. Thus, sir, I liavn cursorily i x*
, umined tire other suction of the constitution,
upon which gentlemen rely; and, I, hava
searched in vain for the grant of power to
impose tire restriction contemplated hy th* •
amendment on your tabie. ‘ d
I cannot but remark, sir, to what ler ..un«
arguments might be carried, prodkld Jorne, •
on the supposition, of (ho existeirff t V ne t®, t 1 „
( power on tue puitjof Congress^clothfe; aayt i . '
conditions and restrictions., \ * ...
If you have the authority to mipqbttJer.
“"Ulunire^tlieatatcaccuiceiiiwl. aa well as
“ Un -mw-rti^ 1 U 1 ?.W,
regulations respecting the territory or oili
er properly belonging to the United States.
“And nothing in this const ilulimi shall be-no
such la
isc of the Senate. . , .
! will proceed to an axammation of the
ire important arguments of honorable, gen-
deration, no power to pass
slrietioii having been delegated In f ongress
by that instrument: and all powers nut ex
pressly delegated, being retained to the peo
ple. The, passing of this restriction, there
fore, was in derogation of the rights of the
people so retained. But, by way ui render
ing this part oftlie ordinance more accepta
ble, it has been called a compact aiid agree
ment. A strange compact and agreement,
indeed! I had always supposed that it re
quired at least two parti* s to enter into a
compact or agreement. But in the instance
under consideration, there, skhiiis to have
been but one party. It was a compact and
agreement made between Congress and
themselves, no other party _ consenting, or
being even consulted, in relation to the sub
ject matter of this important re.-liiction; a
restriction made, without authority, and one
violator)' of thu equal rights ol the people of
this country.
But if I’should have formed erroneous
conclusions in relation to tlii.i ordinance—
nav, even if I were to admit that it was duly
authorized anil properly made, it was cer
tainly /uni/ ill its very nature, and confined
in its operation to the territory of the Unit
ed States nortli-vv est of the river Ohio. As
a proof of this, whenev er it has been neces
sary to extend its provisions to territory sub
sequently acquired, it has always been hy a
special act of Congress, passed for that pui-
ful, whether it is derivable from cither sec-1 “construed ns to prejudice any claims of the
ti, m- I “ United States or of any particular state.”
But Ictus examine the sections referred to. I By the first clause of this section, we ner-
Thc “th section of the 1st article is as ful- cei*e that, “ new states may be admitted by
] uWg: |“the Congress into the union.”
“ The migration or Importation of such In the construction of this clause, great in-
personstu. any oftlie states now existing fluence is given to the word “maw.” L'on-
shalt think proper to admit, shall not he pro- J gross may admit new states. And ’lis con-
liibiUd by the Congress jnior to the year | tended that as Congress may do this, it ful-
1808 , but a lax or duty may be imposed on lows as a necessary consequence that they
cucli importation, r.ot exceeding ten dollars may prescribe the terms upon which it may
for each person.” I be done. ... ...
’Tis much to be regretted that any sec- This, I think,Is an inference not fairly ac
tion of this inimitable instrument shouldhnve j ducible from the premises. Because you
been so constructed as to admit even of have a right to accept or reject a proposition
doubtful Interpretation. It is, however, a 1 when made to you, it certainly does not fol-
proof thut perfection belongs not to man, low as a consequence, that you have a right
but it is an attribute of the Deity. The in- to compel tie person who made the propo-
strume.nt under consideration if., perhaps, as sition tochinpe and modify it, so as toren-
perfect as man could make it. dcr it compatible with your ideas of the fit-
' The gentlemen w ho rely upon this sec- ness of tbiigs. Your power is fulfilled when
tion contend that the power impliedly nc- you have exercised the right of acceptance
knowiedged to reside in Congress, by the j or rejeetim.
phraseology of this section, to prohibit the] Besides, I presume, the construction con-
migrntion of slaves, is euflleieiitly extensive I tended Jbr is extending the use of the word,
to’ authorize the interdiction of carrying | “ may"(ar beyond wliut was originally in-
slaves from one state to another of tlds Uu- I tended The stales contemplated to be nd-
on or from the states to the territories be-1 niitteJ, I take it for granted, were to he
kinging to the United Stales; xml that Con- clothed with sovereign,independent power,
giess may well regulate the intercourse be- having all the rights, privileges and inrnmni-
icecii the states and territories, in this re- tiesef the Btutcs which tlun compound the
aril, and totally prohibit the “migration” of federal compact Aud they were to come
* •' 1 I ...4. il .. imnn OlMI'll t» TltlV^ u>* •>■- t./.t
slaves.
On first ttiming mv attention to this sub
ject. with a view to the formation of an
opinion upon the section under consldera-
- 1 • i ...:.*. iL«v...e...r tS..t it.-
tion, I vvnf
mimpressed with llicLvlsuf thutth^ Jed Vit
words “mifcralicMi and importation” were | denc^ to make tiwim
used as convertible ; that they were intended
to lmve the same interpistation; and both U
have inference to the introduction of
from
ton"
ing tin
belie*
•sto the union upon equal terms—so as not
to disgrace the lair fabric of our gnx-rnmrnL
I can hardly presume -hat ttn-v t 0 b,.
manacled and dragged into the union,, ,
ed Vith disgraceful restrictions iuivniga *
If you r
one now sought to lie imposed, may
imruse any other? If you have a i
.. .. .. . «r..-*iares ifHU'l
‘wtiwu ur.siares tniU'W
fiMvtAfVtu has,
And you may go’a step further, and pro- \ ■
scribe the manner in which the soil shall bn
cultivated. In fine, there is uo restriction or
condition whatever, which may not, w;it£l
equal propriety, be imposed. ” .
Have honorable gentlemen refleetnd^thaV, ’A
admission into the union ns an imtcpcadertp
state, feel, if Congress were to make it U
condition of their admission, thut slavery
should be there tolerated, and jieraons mi-ft
grating thither might curry with them thbif
slaves, and exercise all the nets of owr.efo
ship over them, which they wqre wont to dd
iu the state (ruin whence they migrated. '
1 imagine sir, that the people of Main*
would begin to enquire, from whence' Con
gress derived the power to Impose such a
condition. They would he desirous of
knowing, sir, from what article or section of
the constitution Congress derived the pow
er to interfere with lhe internal affairs aud
police of their stole, Audi much question,
•sir, w hether we could take shelter under the
wings oftlie constitution, from the imputa
tion which would be cut upon us, of-an As
sumption of unauthorized power.
But, sir, without detaining the Sena'e long
er upon this branch of the subject, 1 will pr*»
eeeo to an examination of the treaty between
the United States and France, by which tbs
territory of Missouri, with other territoty.
tYns acquired. And in the investigation of
tins part of th*- question. ! might cdtnlt, fo*
the Hake of argument, (and for argument’s
sake alone could it be. admitted,) thepos-
loathe' theirVondUiofl f ' on f c ? s l«"'er contended
1 n intended hvfr&i* “ gYneifTpriiH'.iple, andyelmlght suo-
xpr
posi'
Iteyild scarcely have lieun inten c •) " n ^ty contend that they arc lurbid 111*
the fraVners oftlie constitution, to » . . qyf such power in relation to'Missaa-
ferred tviiovvi-.r to Congrers, in the exercise rquyuier _ i f
being authorized to J Had such pover been intended o
ceedinc t» n t- »11ars f • « I ivh.,j pruvunlud thu instTUon oftuch u 1-r
u in the constitution r It would have oc-
ceeding
the conclusion that the words were cnt.tiea
to be considered separately ; that they
intended to hav#* distinct ru*5uuin^&»
to be employed in the (lerformaiice
tieular ofliee. 1 was the. more eiuily bsi to j grr
- t.UllUCU tlNlill III 111*. , ,, ,,
,ey were eupiedbut little, time to have added, nflir
and each the word “ union,” the words “ upon such
of a par- terms, conditions, mid restrictions as Von-
• t_. t *4 ... 1 .... Am.,y»i it s-Tiu’iVuMit to impose.
•ss may deem it expedient to impose.
I will in the first place call the attention
cf th*> getetfe IV the yr4;nai»CB of 87, wain.
The honorable pentli inan from Pennsyl
vania, after informing us that Ohio, Indiana,
a nl Illinois have been admitted under his fa
vorite ordinance, triumphantly asks—how
can Missouri complain ? 1 alR m)t apprized
that the right of restriction was contested
at the time oftlie. admission of these states:
1 think it highly probable it w as not. » be
ordinance of’87 embraced the territory o
which these states were formed. It Una
been for a long time acquiesced in- i be
territory had been settled, under the impres
sion that slavery was not to be tolerated,
and tile restriction contained in the ordinance
was, as to the inhabitants of this territory,
of uo importance w hatever. In relation to
Missouri, the case is widely different. 1 he
ordinance of'87 has never embraced it: it
has been settled by slavi-bolders, whose
manners, customs, and habits are not only
familiarized to the toleration of slavery, but
for whoso convenience it bus become some
what necessary, and to whom the general
government ho? P v <'t' > ' , H ,,ud
ell it is admitted Congress pos
IhiTcfon., .«* I»
The construction, therciore, wu.cn. »«* , tlmy will oc-
ouiiut into me i miy o* n Biau;. -- — -
«u- <•? i-a y»» > | » «• i«r
ing of slaves directly into our ereis^rkht of 5eCl altogether,(though 1
there should be no»nterd.ctimi_o_ I th; ‘ k 8U & riJ f US ;d would be. Incompatible
inimediately'adjohflus 'he territoryj oniic | with good faith.) But, l repeat,_ that such
..mi.ru.u', t b n . c0 || c cted, right to admit orr.fuseadmission, dots tmt
L,1 ’ t,,d teetl^ of lh "Sdtonuf the fed-1imply a right to imnoze terms and coni,
that, at uii- nu«w v * ”• —i v , i I , • •
eral constitution., this country was bovdcriu l lions
d fferentdirections hy territory belonging
to other nations.
t : on ycv. Pt't'vfy inr nvi i.u»
As to that past of the section which mi
- 1 " - -dful rule-
‘ By Living this construe- Ithovizes Congress to make all
the" full tneauing uf, both Und re^datictr, rcrp'^tlog tlte t , D
r,abled to The third proviwous of the. trvaty.—
the “Bie iiihahitanft^thto treaty provides, that
um be incorporated in tt*' ceded territory shall
of States, and admitted aHV*a of the United
cording to the principles of 1 .** possible, ac-
Etitutiou, to the enjoyment ol Weral con-
advantages nnd immuniticaof citflfc righto.
United States; and, in the meantime the
sliail be inaiiitaim-d and protected in the ftv
cnjovment of their liberty, property, and
the religion which they profess."
The treaty bears date the 30th April, K03,
nnd was, no doubt, entered into with good
faith between the high contracting parties.
Aud hy this treaty it will be yicen that tha
inhabitants were to be incorporated into thu
union as jmm as jacsitlc, and were to be
protested in tbelree enjoyment of their pro-- j
pertu. It is admitted, or, at any rate, it ba*
not been d.-nied, that slaves constituted tt
part of the property of tlw InhAltenUof the
coded territory, and of which the United
States guaranteed the free enjoyment; thu»
cognizing the existence of slavery in th*
territory in question.
But a reference to the acto of the gov
ernment in relation to this territory will bo
sufficient to show what construction ha*
been placed upon this article of the treaty.
By an act of Congress, in October,8CSf
the President of the United States is au
thorized to take possession of the territory
ceded by France to tU United States. Ii»
March, lGtH, an act is passed erecting Lou-
iatT.nn tntn two territories. Orleans and Lou
isiana into two territories, Orleana
ihiana and providing for Uie. temporary
government thcreofi And by the 10th sea-. j
* * * ’ n \ y
tion of this ct«. it i-s(Iceland, among otlu
tilings, not to lie law ful for any person to «»-
port or bring into said territory, from »*>Y
1 , C »*... K ..r*V.n 1 Tmli-t
port or place withinthe Knrito of the United /
, , fM
States, any slave or slaves, except a eitixeu *•
. . 1. . . « r,. , — I«.4a muI Iaiw
of the United Rtat* -* removing into said ten- *
ritory fur actual «et)1<?pient, tuni hc'Df- at tJlMj