Southern recorder. (Milledgeville, Ga.) 1820-1872, March 28, 1820, Image 1

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

6 / f"Jfti"- 7 /r?fi m*T SOUTHERN RECORDER. VOL. h MILLEDGEVILLE, TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 1820. No. 7. PUBLISHED WEEKLY, (on Tuesdays) BY S. GMLYTLAXD if R. M. ORME, at three dollars, in advance, or four DOLLARS AT THE EXPIRATION OF THE YEAR. Advertisements conspicuously inser ted at the customary rates. MR. REID'S SPEECH ON THE MISSOURI QUESTION, In the House of Representatives, 2 ith Jan. Mr. Reid, of Georgia, next addressed the House. That this was a question deeply interesting to that quarter of the union whence he had the honor to come, was the only apology he urged for of fering his opinions to the committee. This subject (he continued) is said to be delicate and embarrassing. It is so : and particularly in one point of view.— The sentiments, to which the heal and ardor of debate give expression, will not expire here, like the broken echoes of your hall! They will penetrate to the re motest corners of the nation, and may make an impression upon the black po pulation of the south, as fatal, in its ef fects to the slave, as mischievous to our citizens. This is not mere idle surmise. In a professional capacity, I was recent ly f oncerned for several unhappy beings, who were tried and convicted of a viola tion of the laws, by attempted insurrec tion. They had held conversations, as the testimony developed, with certain itinerant traders, who not only poisoned their minds, but incited them to rebellion -—by proffered assistance. Such influ ence have the opinions of even the most depraved and ignorant white men upon this unfortunate race of people. But the subject is neither delicate nor em barrassing, as it is considered to imply reproach, or a high offence against the moral law—the violation of the liberty ■Of our fellow man. Such imputations « . pass by us "as the idle wind, which we respect not.” They are “ barbless arrows shot from bows unstrung!” The slave-holding states have not brought this calamity up on themselves. They have not volun tarily assumed this burthen. It was fastened to them by the mother country, notwithstanding the most earnest entrea ties and expostulations. And, if gentle men were well acquainted with the true state of slavery in the south, (I speak particularly of Georgia, for my informa tion extends little farther) 1 am very sure their understandings would acquit us of the charges which their imaginations prefer. An honorable gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Smyth) remarked yesterday, inci dentally, that the debate of the hist ses sion upon this subject occasioned Geor gia to interdict emancipation by an act of her legislature. The honorable gen tleman has been misinformed. The act of 1818, to which he has allusion, was designed more completely to carry into effect the provisions of the law prescrib ing the manner of manumitting, and which had been enacted several years before. It may be proper to remark, that the discussion of the bill to admit Missouri had its commencement, at the last Congress, some time alter the ad journment of the Georgia legislature.— Certain it is, that the statute book of that state contains no law, by which it is de clared that slaves cannot be made free. Sir, the slaves of the south are held to a service which, unlike that of the an cient Villain, is certain and moderate.— They are well supplied with food and raiment. They are “contentand care less of to-morrow’s fare.” The lights of our religion shine as well for them as for their masters; and their rights of personal security, guaranteed by the constitution and the laws, are vigilantly protected by the courts. It is true they are .often made subject to wanton acts ot tyranny; but this is not their peculiar misfortune! For, search the catalogue of crimes, and you will find that man— the tyrant—is continually preying upon bis fellow man : that there are as many while as black victims to the vengeful passions and the Just of power! Believe me sir, 1 am not the panegyrist of slave ry. It is an unnatural state; a dark cloud which obscures half the lustre of our free institutions! But it is a fixed evil, which we can only alleviate. Are we called upon to emancipate our slaves ? 1 answer, their welfare—the safety of our citizens, forbid it. Can we incor porate them with us, and make themand ns one people ? The prejudices of the north and of the south rise up in equal strength against such a measure ; and even those, who clamor most loudly for the sublime doctrines of your declara tion of independence, who shout in your ears “all men are by nature equal!” would turn with abhorrence and disgust from a party-colored progeny! Shall we then be blamed for a state of things to tvhich we are obliged to submit ? Would it be fair; would it be manly; would it ke generous ; would it be just; to offer fontumely and contempt to the unfortun- *1* man who wears % cancer in his bo som, because he will not submit to cau tery at the hazard of his existence ? For my own part; surrounded by slavery from my cradle to the present moment, I yet “ Hnte the touch of servile hands; “ I loathe the slaves who cringe around,” and would hail that day, as the most glorious in its dawning, which would be hold, with safety to themselves and our citizens, the black population of the United States placed upon the high emi nence of equal rights, and clothed in the privileges and immunities of American citizens! But this is a dream of philan thropy which can never be fulfilled; and whoever shall act, in this country, upon such wild theories, shall ceaso to be a benefactor, and become a destroyer of the human family. It is said, however, to be high time to check the progress of this evil; and that this may best be done by inhibiting slavery beyond the Mississippi, and par ticularly in the Missouri, which prays to be admitted a state into the union. It is important to consider, if this project be consistent with the constitution of the United States. The states formed the constitution, in the capacity of sovereign and independent stales, and the constitu tion is the instrument by which they conveyed certain powers to a general government. This is evident, not only from the nature of the government form ed, and in every line of the constitution, but it is a doctrine distinctly asserted in the 9th and 10th articles of the amend ments. The enumeration in the con stitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people ;” and, “ the pow ers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states re spectively, or to the people.” Hence, it will follow, that the several states re tain every power not delegated by the constitution to the general government; or, in other words, that in all enumerat ed cases, the several states are left in the full enjoyment of their sovereign and independent jurisdictions. The author of the Federalist (which work is admit ted to contain a correct exposition of the principles of the constitution) has said, “ that with respect to the extent of its powers, the government cannot be deem ed national, since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several states a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects.” In aid to this conclusion, if any thing were necessary to sustain it, it may be cited, as a maxim of sound na tional law, that sovereign states can only be deprived of their rights by voluntary consent or by conquest. It woulJ seem, then, that the constitution must be con strued strictly, whenever the rights of the state sovereignties become the sub ject of dispute ; and strictly, where the right of personal liberty, or personal se curity, or private property are question ed.* Because the citizen of the Uuited States is the citizen also of another in dependent government, whose laws he is bound to obey, unless, where this du ty has been transferred to the general government, by the express words of the constitution itself. If it were otherwise we should find the United States contin ually engaged in a struggle with the states, to enforce the obedience of the citizen. Such contests, itis easy to per ceive, would tarnish, if not destroy, the golden chain by which our federative government is held together. . They would lead to gradual usurpations of power, by which your constitution would be made a dead letter, and your repub lican institutions exist only in name.— Proceeding upon these principles, let us endeavor to ascertain in what part of the constitution that power is delegated, which would authorize you to adopt the amendment proposed by the member from New-York. The grant of powers to the Congress is chiefly contained in the 8th section of the 1st article, and you will certainly not hnd therein any authority to inhibit slavery in any part of the union, in any territory, or in any state about to be admitted into the union. The 9th section commences with this clause: “ The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited prior to theyear 1808; but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dol lars for each person.” It may be said, very plausibly ; that the words “ migra tion” and “importation” are here used synonymously; but let us give to every word in the clause an appropriate mean ing, and then we will see whether the word “ migration” is the little source whence mighty effects of evil are to flow upon the country! Certainly, the fram ers of the constitution desired to destroy a traffic, of all others the most cruel and iniquitous : a trade stained by the blood, and drenched in the tears of humanity! By inhibiting “the importation after 1808 of such persons as any of the states then existing thought proper to admit,” * Vide Tucker’s Blackstone. it ivas intended to convey a power to prevent the introduction of Africans in to the United States. By inhibiting the “migration,” after 1808, of such persons —for the constitution, it appears to me. still refers to Africans—and 1 express this opinion with deference and humility —may it not have been intended the more effectually to provide against eva sions of the laws interdicting the impor tation of slaves? The object was to prevent the accumulation of this species of property. It was well known to the founders of our government, that as soon as the importation was declared to be il legal, the slave merchant would resort to every artifice which ingenuity and avarice could devise for the purpose of effecting a violation of the laws. Sup pose him to place Ids slaves upon a fo reign territory, adjacent to tike United States. They are permitted or instruct ed to pass the boundary, and, when within our limits, an associate in villainy is ready to receive them. In the pos session of this person they are found, and he is put upon his trial for import ing contrary to law. He defends him self by proving an alibi—by shewing, us far as negative proof can show, that he had in no wise been concerned in the importation. But it is objected, that the fact of possession, with the circumstan ces of language and complexion, will pro duce an inference of his guilt not to be mistaken. What then? Base as he is, will he not entrench and fortify himself by perjuries and subornations of perju ry ? Will he not make out a case by which it shall appear that the victims of his cupidity sought a protection which he could not w ithhold—that they migrat ed, and were not imported ? What then is the effect of the United States’ statute which only prohibits importation ? The strict construction of the penal law will not permit it to reach the case. The result must be, that the luckless Africans are left to the operation of the state, laws, and, in all probability, sold as slaves, thereby advancing the evil which the legislature was endeavoring to destroy. May it not have been to guard against such frauds, shifts and artifices, that the word “ migration” was inserted in the constitution ? But the meaning of this word is fixed and limited by the express words of the clause in which it occurs, “'ihe migration of all such persons as any of the states now existing think pro per to admit.” To what description of persons does the constitution allude? But one of two answers can, it seems to me, be rationally returned to this ques tion. The allusion is either to Africans who were the proper subjects of the slave trade, or white persons coming from foreign lands. If this lie so, how can the constitutional provision be so far wrested from its purpose as to be made to apply to the removal of slaves from one state to another, or to a territory— slaves, who are recognized as the ob jects of property by the constitution it self? If the solemn covenant of our li berties can be thus abused, it is no long er to be esteemed oracular, or, if it re semble an oracle, it is only because its responses are involved in doubt and ob scurity. 1 find nothing more to afford even a colorable pretext for the proposed re striction, until we come to these words : “ New states may be admitted into the union.” The single word “ may” is sup posed to be the depository of the power so anxiously sought; and, it is said, if Congress can admit a new state, the constitution being silent as to the condi tion to be imposed, the state about to be admitted may be fastened with any con dition not especially interdicted by the constitution itself. This is a non scqvi- tur. It is a conclusion most lame and impotent; in direct hostility with the letter as well as the spirit of the consti tution ! It is not enough that the con stitution is silent, to authorise the Con gress to speak or to act; fur Congress is the creature of the constitution, and must look to it for open, declared, and posi tive direction. What the constitution dictates is to be done ; what it prohibits is to be avoided ; but, when it is silent. Congress possesses not authority to di rect citizens or states. These must, then, be controlled by their own inde pendent. governments. Let it be remem bered that the constitution, being in de rogation of state rights, must be constru ed strictly. This clause of the 3d sec tion of the article, then, only allow s to us the power to receive or reject, with out qualification or condition, a state making application to be admitted into the union. But there is a condition, without which a state cannot be admitted into the un ion ; ami it is to be found in the 4th sec tion of the 3d article: “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of govern ment.” “ Guarantee,” means, if I at all understand the signification of words, “to undertake that certain stipulations shall be performed.” These stipulations ran only be found in the constitutions of the states, where they must constitute “a republican form of government." If this be so ; then, at the moment a new state is admitted, the same guarantee which applies to the original states ex tends to her also. She must, consequent ly, have been in the possession of “ a republican form of government” at the time of entering the union '; because it would be preposterous to imagine that to be guaranteed of which she was not possessed—that to be secured to her, which in fact, had no existence. It re sults, then, that without “arepublican form of government” u state cannot come into the confederacy ; and is not the necessity to possess it a sine qua non, or condition, without which the new state cannot be admitted ? Sir, this con dition, being expressed, operates to the exclusion of every other. “ Expressin wins est cxclvsio alterius," is a sound maxim both of common law and common sense. But, it is objected, slavery is incom patible with that “ republican form of government” which the 6tate admitted must possess. We must receive words according to the intention of those who utter them. And we must giye construc tion to the constitution, by considering all the parts of that instrument together. South Carolina and Georgia were slave holding states at the time the constitu tion was framed and adopted, and yet, in its eye, these were considered to possess republican forms of government. Be sides, the right of the citizen to possess slaves, is expressly recognized by the instrument of which we speak. 1 need scarcely advert to the 2d section of the 1st article, wherein the representation is determined : to the permission to im port, unttl a given period, in the 9tli section of the first article : and to the 2d section of the 2d article, where the re lations of master and servant are distinct ly asserted. It is evident, then, that a state of domestic slavery was entirely out of view, when the founders of the confederation determined to “ guarantee to the several states a republican form of government.” The Constitution of the United States is plain and simple; it requires no supe riority of intellect to comprehend its dictates ; itis addressed to every under standing ; '* he who runs may read.” It is, then, a proof of the absence of all au thority for the proposed measure ; when its advocates, and some too, of great names, fly from clause to section, and from section to article, without finding “ rest for the sole of the footwithout fixing or agreeing upon any one line, phrase, or section, whence this power for which all contend may be brought into existence. And it is perfectly na tural that this effect should be produc ed. A search for the philosopher’s stone might as soon be expected to end in certainly. But it is argued that Congress lias e- ver imposed restrictions upon new states and no objection has been urged until this moment, if it be true, that only one condition can constitutionally be impos ed, it would seem that any other is null and void, and may be thrown off by the state at pleasure. And then this argu ment, the strength of which is in prece dent, cannot avail. Uniformity of deci sion for hundreds of years cannot make that right, which at first was wrong. If it were otherwise, in vnin would science and the arts pursue their march towards perfection ; in vain the constant pro gress of truth ; in vain the new and bright lights which are daily finding their way to the human mind, like the rays of the distRiiistars, which, passing onward from the creation of time, are said to be continually reaching our sphere. Malut usus apolendus cst. When error appears, iet her be detected and exposed, and let evil precedents be abolished. It is true that the old confederation, by the 6th section of the ordinance of 1707, inhibited slavery in the territory north west ol the Ohio, and that the states of Illinois, Ohio, and Indiana, have been introduced into the Union, under this restriction. Sir, the ordinance of ’87 had an ori gin perfectly worthy of the end it seems' de-tined to accoifcdish. It bad n - au thority in the articles of confederation, which did not contemplate, w ith the ex ception of Canada, the acquisition of ter ritory. It was in contradiction nf the resolution of 1780, by which the states were allured to cede their unlocated lands to the General Government, upon the condition that these should consti tute several states, to be admitted into the union upon an equal footing with the original states. It is in fraud of the acts of cession, by which the states con veyed territory in faith of the resolution of ’80. And, when recognized by acts of Congress, and applied to the states formed from the territory beyond the Ohio, itis in violation of the constitution of the United States. So much for the efficacy of the precedent, which, al though binding here, is not, it would seem, of obligation upon Ohio, Indiana, or Illinois, or, if you impose it upon Missouri. It is not the force of your le- gni provisions which attaches the res trictive 6tli article of the ordinance to the states I have mentioned. It is the moral sentiment of the inhabitants. Im pose it upon Missouri, and she will in dignantly throw off the yoke, and laugh you to scorn! You will then discover that you have assumed a weapon that you cannot wield—the bow of Ulysses, which all your efforts cannot bend. The open and voluntary exposure of your weakness will make you not only the ob ject of derision at home, but a bye-word among nations. Can there be a power in Congress to do thnt which the object of the power may rightfully destroy ?— Are the rights of Missouri and of the Union in opposition to each other ? Can it be possible that Congress has authori ty to impose a restriction which Missou ri, by an alteration of her Constitution, may abolish ? Sir, the course we arc pur suing reminds me of the urchin, who, with great care and anxiety, constructs his card edifice, which the slightest touch may demolish—the gentlest breath dis solve. But let us stand together upon the ba sis of precedent, and upon that ground you cannot extend this restriction to Mis souri. You have imposed it upon the territory beyond the Ohio, but you have never applied it elsewhere. Tennessee, Vermont, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missis sippi, and Alabama, have come into the Union without being required to submit to (he condition inhibiting slavery ; nay, whenever the ordinance of ’87 has been applied to any of these states—the ope ration of the 6th article has been suspen ded or destroyed. According, then, to the uniform tenor of the precedent, let the states to he formed of the territory without the boundaries of the territory northwest of Ohio remain unrestricted, and in the enjoyment of the fulness of their rights. Thus, it appears to me, the power you seek to assume, is not to be found in the constitution, or to be derived from precedents. Shall it then, without any known process of generation, spring spontaneously from your councils, like the armed Minerva from the brain of Ju piter ? The Goddess, sir, although of wisdom, was also the inventress of war; and the power of your creation, although extensive in its dimensions, and ingeni ous in its organization, may produce the most terrible and deplorable effects.— Assure yourselves, you have not autho rity to bind a state coming into the Union, with a single hair! If you have, you may rivet a chain upon every limb, n fetter upon every joint! Where then 1 ask is the independence of your state go vernments ? Do they not fall prostrate, debased, covered with sackcloth & crow ned with ashes before the gigantic pow er of the Union ? They will no longer, sir, resemble planets, moving in order, around a solar centre, receiving and im parting lustre. They will dwindle to mere satellites, or thrown from their or bits, they will wander “ like stars con demned, the wrecks of worlds demolish ed !” The ordinance of’87 has been called, and is called, in your laws, an irrevoca ble compact with the good people be yond the Ohio. Sir, there is a compact equully irrevocable; as 1 think, more so, which governs the destinies of the extensive region beyond the Mississippi. I mean the treaty of 1803, by which Louisiana was ceded to the U. States.-— This 13, indeed, a compact formed by two independent nations, parlies able to contract. The ordinance of’87 was a mere legislative provision, by which you bound your vassal, who could not op pose your wishes, who was in your pow er, and subject to your authority. It pos sesses not the force and effect of a so lemn treaty. The third article of the treaty de clares, that “ the inhabitants of the ce ded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States, and ad mitted ns soon as possible, according to the principles of the federal constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, ad vantages, mid immunities, of citizens of the United States.” How are the inhabitants to be “ in corporated in the Union of the United States ?” Certainly by admitting the territory to which they belong as a state or states into the Union “according to the principles of the federal constituti on.” 1 confess myself so dull, as to Le able to give no other construction to the words of the treaty. Argument is of none effect when it attempts to make that which is self evident still more apparent. These inhabitants are to be placed, too, in a political situation, in all respects e- qual with that of our own citizens. It follows, then, that citizens of the United States having the power, under the con stitution, to possess property in slaves, and to remove that property whitherso ever thr y will, the check or limit upon this power, being imposed only, by the state sovereignties, the inhabitants of Louisiana cannot be fairly in possession of “all the rights, advantages, and im munities, of citizens of the U. States ” unless they possess this also. The trea ty of 1803 is the supreme law of the land, and must be obeyed. Obedience consists in admitting Missouri, which is a part of the then territory of' Louisiana, as a state into the Union, upon the sol* condition, that she shall possess a repub lican form of government. There are some, 1 understand, who think Congress has the power to impose this restriction upon the territory of the United States, although it cannot be for ced upon a state, at the moment of ad mission, and they find their text in the following words of the constitution “ Congress shull have power to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regu lations respecting the territory and other property belonging to the United States.” Without stopping to enquire, how far a provision excluding slavery comes with in the meaning of “ needful rules, and regulations ;” how far, under authority to make rules and regulations respecting the territory of the United States, Con gress can make laws affecting the rights of property ; how far the citizen of the south, who lias an equal claim w ith his brother of the north, to the lands on the west of the Mississippi, can be deprived of the constitutional privilege of enjoy ing his property in that country ; it is e- nough for me, "that the treaty of 1803 in terposes, to prevent the enactment of any condition interfering with the liber ty, religion or property of the inhabi tants of Louisiana, The article 1 have just quoted, after providing for the in corporation of the ceded territory into the Union, runs thus. “ And in the mean time they (the inhabitants) shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and the religion they profess.” Now, slave* were property at the time of the ratifi cation of the treaty, and therefore with in its meaning. Giving tothe words “in the mean time” the construction they would seem to demand, it must follow, that, until the inhabitants arc “incorpo rated in the Union, according to the prin ciples of the federal constitution,” their right to possess this species of property is guaranteed by the treaty. It cannot be said to the slaveholder who becomes an inhabitant of Louisiana, “ you shall leave your slaves behind you.” Hi* ouly and conclusive reply is in the word* which I have read. He bids you pre serve that good faith which the law, the dignity of which is settled by the consti tution, inculcates. He insists, that, up on the instant lie becomes an inhabitant of Louisiana, bis right to his slaves i* both recognized and sanctioned. Ho surely does not insist in vain, for all ci vilized governments respect, or affect to respect, the solemnity of treaties.... Can you refuse obedience to this, after the high language which you have used towards the Spanish Court ? If you do, even the gravity of the adored Ferdi nand will relax into a smile, I dare not say of contempt, but certainly of distrust. I beg leave to offer a few words upon the expedience of this amendment, and I decline myself at a loss to divine the mo tive which so ardently presses its enact ment. It is said that humanity, a tender concern for the welfare, both of the slave and his master, is the moving prin ciple. And here I cannot refrain from repeating the words of a periodical wri ter, as remarkable for his good taste, as the justness of his sentiments : “ The u- sual mode,” says he, “ of making a bad measure palatable to a virtuous and well disposed community, is that of holding it up as conducing to some salutary end, by which the whole people are eventu ally to be greatly benefited. It is thu* that every mischievous public measure is sheltered behind some pretext of pub lic good.” But it is a question which deserves consideration, whether, if sla very be confined to its present limits, the situation of the master or the slave, or both, will be made better ? Will not the increased number of slaves, within a giv- en space, diminish the means of subsis tence ? Will not the number of masters diminish ns the number of slaves in crease ? And what are the consequen ces ? Extreme wretchedness, penury, and want, to the slave : Care, anxiety, imbecility, and servile war to the mas ter! Then, indeed will be produced what the advocates of this amendment so much deprecate—tyranny, in all its wantonness, on one hand ; despair and revenge on the other. At this moment, the situation of the southern slave is, in many respects, enviable. Adopt youg restriction, and his fate will not be bet-, ter than that of the mastiff, howling all day long from the kennel, where hi* chains confine him. But, let the dap-, pled tide of population roll onwards to the west. Raise no mound to interrupt its coarse, and the evil, of which we on all sides so bitterly complain, will have lost half its power to harm, by disper sion. Slaves, divided among many mas ters, will enjoy greater privileges and comforts than those who, cooped within a narrow sphere, and under few owners, will be doomed to drag a long, heavy and clanking chain, through the span ok their existence. Danger from insurrecx tion will diminish. Confidence will gronr between the master and his servant.— The one will no longer be considered as a mere beast of burden; tW other «a q