Newspaper Page Text
SOUTHERN TRIBUNE'
FLISLIsIIEt) WEEKLY, B»
WSI . B . H A KRIS OA .
\VM. B HARRISON, i
ASD s Editors.
\VM. S. LAWTON, )
From the Federal Cnion
JUDGE JOII.HSO.VS LETTER.
Macon, June 28, 1850.
Dear Sir: —A number of your friends here,
reposing great confidence in vour political in
telligence and patriotism are very desirous of
having tour views in reference to the great and
important question that now agitates the public
mind. We allude of course to the Slavery
Question, and as it is presented to us in Mr.
Clay’s so called Compromise Bill. Is this
political nostrum, as it lias been aptly called, a
measure that ought to satisfy the South,or is it a
very thinly disguised fraud upon our consitu
tional rights ? What measure ought to satisfy
the South ; and ought the 36 deg. 30 min., to be
the extreme limit of our concessions ? Is this a
practical question or not,—slavery in the ter
ritories? tome Southern men contend that it is
not. By nswering any or till these questions,
or any other that might striae you in reference
to them, you will greatly oblige,
Your friends,
LARKIN GRIFFIN,
JOHN J JONES,
R A L. ATKINSON,
A. II COLQUITT,
JAMES M GREEN,
SAM L J RAY.
Hon. 11. V. Johnson, Milledgeville.
Mir.t-F.DGEFii.t.K, Ga , July 4, 1850.
Gf.nti.kmes lam honored by the receipt of
your letter of the 28th ult., asking my views of
the Slavery Question, “as it is presented to us,
in Mr. Clay’s so-called Compromise Bill.”
As I entertain no opinions which 1 have
not honestly formed, so 1 have none which I
hesitate one moment to express. Since my
election to the Bench, I have sedulously stood
uloof from party politics—l shall continue to
do so. But the questions propounded in yout
lerrer, are not of that character. Slavery, in all
its aspects,rises above party. It is too important,
too organic, too vital to the well-being of the
South and the harmony of this great Con
federacy, for its deatiuy ever to he linked with
the mutations of party. Thus regnrdingit, Ido
not depart from the course prescribed for myself,
by returning a prompt and frank response to
your call.
You present three propositions upon which
you desire my opinions, viz:
1. Is Mr. Clay’s compromise bill, “a meas
ure that ought to satisfy the South; or is it a very
thinly disguised fraud upon our Constitutional
rights?”
2. “What measure ought to satisfy the South,
and ought the line of 36 deg. 30 min., to be the
extreme limit of our concessions?”
3. “Is this a practical question or not—slavery
in the territories?”
These questions open a wide field for discus
sion— one which cannot be explored in a com
munication of reasonable length. I beg you
therefore to excuse me, if I should draw largely
upon your patience.
In older to decide undctatandiugly, whether
the South ought tube satisfied with Mr. Cl tv’s
compromise, it is important to keep constantly
in mind, the true ground of controversy between
the North and the South. Our la'e war with
Mexico resulted in the acquisition by the United
Slates, from that Republic, of the provinces of
Calfurnia and New Mexico comprising an area
of territory, larger than the original thirteen
States of this Union. It is the fruit of common toil,
common blood, and cornmmon treasure; and
consequently it is the common property of the
several Stales of this Confederacy— per my et
per tout— each having an undivided interest in
the title and enjoyment us the whole. Such is
the doctrine of the Slaveltolding Slates, solemnly
proclaimed by popular meetings and legislative
assemblies. Nor do I know, that it is seriously
questioned by the Northern States, us an abstract
proposition. Indeed, it is so obviously sound,
that few politicians, will hazard their reputations,
by gravely controverting it. It is further insist
ed by the South, that tin: States of the Union
arc co-equals—that each is entitled to an equal
participation in the territory thus acquired, and
that the citizens of each have an equal right to
emigrate thither, with their property of whatso
ever description. But the North,though profes
sing to recognise the equality of the Slates and
thesr common interest in the territories, yet in- j
sists, that from their entire surface, slavery shall
be prohibited by Congress, which rs tantamount
loan exclusion of the people of the South, and
an appropriation of the whole to the free States.
The contest waxes warm between the two sec
tions. Serious alarm for the integrity of the U
nion is awakened, F->r the sake of harmony,
the South is willing to yield much, by way of
compromise.
What sort of compromise then, ought she to
accept? For what is she contending? Is she
warring against the Wilrnot Proviso as a mere
abstraction, devoid of practical, positive evil ?
By no means;—site is struggling for her rights
in the territories of the United States—:he right
of her citizeus to emigrate to them with their
slaves. She not only opposes the Proviso, but
every measure which will produce similar re
sults. Holding these positions, she cannot ac
cede to any compromise which does not recog
nise the co-equality of the Southern with the
Northern States, in all their relations to the con
federacy. She ought to l/c sutisfied with noadjust
merit, which does not secure to her, beyond dispute,
a portion of the territories in question and give
finality to this painful and ptrilous contest.
lines the disposition, which Mr. Clay’s bill
proposes to make of these territories, accom
plish this object ? If 1 thought so, I would sup
port it with all my heart. For the sake of the
Union, 1 would be content with far less than an
equal partition of the territory, especially, if,
along with it, the equality of the Southern
fcftates be recognised.
What then arc the provisions of this bill, in
reference to these territories? It proposes to
admit California as a State, with her present or
ganizalion and boundaries, and to provide terri.
torial governments for Utah and New Mexico,
irrespective of the Wilrnot Proviso. Now,
where is the Southern man who seriously be
lieves, that this measure of legislation will se
cure one foot of territory to the slaveltolding
States? I have never seen it pretended by any
Southern Senator, who has advocated the hill in
debate, that such would be its effect. Is not
rfte absence of such a pretension an eloquent,
hut fearful silence? Is it not equal to a humili
ating confession, that the South loses all? The
only argument urged in its favor, so far as 1 have
neon, is intimidation on the one hand, and des
pondency on the ether. Southern men in Con
gress are threatened, that unless this hill shall
pass, California will be admitted separately , and
trembling under the rod, Southern men in
the subdued feelings of despair, consent to vote
for it, "as the best that cun be done." Would to
God, they would take courage and oppose it to
the bitter end, under the conviction which will,
i-n due time come upon them, that if that, is the
best that can. be done, rue bust is no better
THAN THR WORST.
It is insisted by some, that Mr. Clay’s hill is
the alternative of the plan proposed'by the Ad
ministration, It is contended, that the defeat ol
the former, necessarily secures the adoption ol
tlk: laltot. Tliis is a false issue It is based
upon tlic assumption that the South is hound to
sal mil to one or the other of ihese schemes I
yield to no such assumption. In behalf of the
South, as an individual, I accept no such issue.
I reject it as unworthy her honor and humilia
ting to her pride. The presentation of the ques
tion under this aspect, uiay be a very good way
to rally the opponents of the President, at the
tocsin call of party, in support of Mr. Clay's
measure, with the view of crippling and weaken
ing his administration. But fur higher than this,
is the stand point from which the Southern
statesman should contemplate this question
With him, it should be regarded as sacrilege to
associate with it, the idea of party. The only
issue which lie can accept, is the defeat of Mr.
Clay's bill on the one baud, and, as its only al.
ternatire, justice to the South, on the other. To
me, Gen. Taylor's plan is not more odious, be
cause lie is the leader of a Whig administration,
and Mr. Clay’s not more acceptable, because
like “a wolf in sheeps’ clothing,” it comes bap
tized with the misnomer of compromise Asa
Southern man, I scorn both. The South is not
bound to submit to either—if she wills it, she
has the power to defeat both. Ido not there
fore view them in contrast. Mr. Clay’s bill is
the measure before the country, and the course
of the South in reference to it, should he decided
by an examination ofit upon its merits.
In certain quarters, also, powerful appeals are
made to the Democratic party to unite in sup
port of this measure, in order to save their own
honor and that of the administration of Mr. Polk.
They are told that they brought about the an
nexation of Texas—that the annexation of Tex
as led to the war with Mexico—that the war
with Mexico resulted in the acquisition of these
Territories—that the acquisition of these Terri
tories is the occasion of this fearful controversy
between the slaveholding and non-slevcliolding
States; ergo the Democratic party are mainly
responsible for the existing state of things, and
consequently arc under very peculiar obligations
to cherish a spirit of compromise and concession.
If 1 were disposed to look at this question as a
party man, i should deprecate most bitterly an
appeal based upon such premises. It is a plain
and downright endorsement of the accusations
brought by the Whig, against the Democratic
party. It admits to he true tho odious charges
with which the former has assailed the latter.—
Such an appeal from a Whig source would he
perfectly natural, hut to see it from Democratic
vuarters, is truly surprising. Asa Democrat, 1
would regard such ait argument as a dishonor t<>
niy parly; and however I might recognize their
general obligations to do all that is in their pow
er to save the Union, I would protest against the
reasons urged for any peculiar obligation to sup
port Mr. Clay’s bill as au admission of allega
tions ofdishonor. But I make no appeal to any
parly. It is tin worthy the statesman—unworthy
the true Democrat—unworthy the Southern man—
unworthy the momentous theme. 1 look at
the country as she is—t bo state of things ns they
exist. I stop not to inquire which party is res
ponsible for the past or the present It is suffi
cient fur me to know, that the South is threa
tened witli degradation and ruin by a miserable
misnamed compromise, patched up and advoca
ted by men too suppliant to contend for the right
and too timid to face responsibility Asa party
man, 1 trust my position is well understood, and
therefore I need not sick to show my zeal lor
democracy, by an attempt to associate the duly
of the South in her present emergency' with ei
tlior its past history or its future honor. M\
motto is, let till parties of the South he united
for the sake of the South, and with unyielding
firmm ss let them demand justice, for the sake of
the Union.
But the Southern opponents of Mr. Clay’s hill
are asked, whether they do not admit the right
of the inhabitants of a Terrslory in forming a
State Constitution, to decide for themselves,
whether they will tolerate or exclude slavery ?
And shall we reject California, because she has
thought proper to prohibit slavery by her consti
tution ? Does not Mr. Clay’s hill carry out fully
the Southern doctrine of non interference, in re
ference to Utah and New Mexice ? These ques
tions arc plausible and specious. But they en
tirely ignore the facts and considerations which
expose their fallacy.
AsaSouthcrn man, I would not oppose the
admission of California, because Iter constitution
prohibits slavery On this subject, in a speech
delivered in the Senate of the United States, on
the 28th February, 184!), 1 expressed the follow
ing sentiments, and 1 repent them here :
“Let it not he inferred from what I have said
that 1 would oppose the admission of a State in
to the Union on the ground of its being a free
State. I have no such feeling. If California
and New Mexico shall lie required to submit to
tho usual probation of the territorial condition ;
if, by just legislation on the part ol Congress,
the South he allowed a fair chance to participate
in the formation of their civil and social system;
if the door of emigration he thrown open alike to
the citizens of all the States ; and then, if tlie
climate and productions of those regions, with
out Congressional interference, shall exclude
slavery, and at a proper time the people shall
form State constitutions prohibiting its existence,
I would cheerfully vote for their admission, even
though they he free States.’’
If it be asked then, why I oppose the admis
sion of California as a State ? I reply, because
it is not a Territory, in the legal or political im
port of that term. True, it is Territory that is,
property of the United Slates. But it is not a
Territory, defined as to boundaries by Congress,
who alone has the right to prescribe and fix
them. It is not a Territory organized into a
temporary government, by Congiess, who alone
lias the right thus to organize it. 1 oppose it,
because the people there are not, in any consti
tutional sense, inhabitants thereof. They have,
as a people, no permanent interest in the soil
no political rights over it. Tho great mass of
them are adventurers, who have gone there,
without any intention of permanent location, but
simply to prey upon the mines, which are the
common property of all .lie States. They have
no right to appropriate to themselves the entire
domain, to organize a State and fix the character
of the institutions, domestic, civil and political,
which will control and shape its destiny for all
future time. The whole movement is a most
palpable and unauthorized usurpation. To ad
mit it ns a State, under soelt circumstances, is
riot only to sanction and ratify such usurpation,
but to inflict deep, permanent and degrading in
justice to tho South.
All this might be tolerated, if all things had
been conducted fairly towards both sec tions of
the Union. But Congress has pursued such a
course as inevitably and effectually, to prevent
emigration from the Southern States to Califor
nia, and thus to exclude them, from an equal
voice, in the formation of tho constitution w hick
she offers. They nave refused to organize Ter
ritorial governments. They have ever held the
Wilrnot Proviso, in terror, over the heads of the
Southern people. They refused to adopt, what
is known as the “ Clayton Compromise,' by
which the South was \vi lling to submit her rights
under the Constitution, to the adjudication of the
Supreme Court of the United Stoles. They have
persisted in denying, that the Constitution, by
virtue of the Mexican Treaty efeession,extend
ed over the Territory acquired. And when it
was proposed by Mr. Walker, a Senator from
Wisconsin, in February, 1849, to extend the
laws and Constitution over tt, by legislative en
actment, it was rejected by a decided and inex
orable majority. Such conduct—so unjust, so
iniquitous—while it has deterred emigration
from the Southern, has encouraged and stimula
ted it, from the Northern Slates, and has result
ed in the eoiigregaiiou of thoa-amls upon thous
ands of tree soil adventurers, who wi.hout anv
nerinancnt i- mi the soil, without anv in
tention of making it their home, being still citi
zens of the Stales w henc e they came, have ar
rogated arid usurped to themselves, the high pre
rogative of wresting from tho Stales, the sove
reignly of the domain, formed a State constitu
tion, and now demand immediate admission into
the Union, with the threat of separate indepen
dence, if their modest request ho not uncondi
tionally granted Mr. (Ray’s bill sanctions and
ratifies all this, under the deceptive garb of com
promise, and calls upon the South, in the name
of harmony and for the sake of the Union, to co
operate in her own disfranchisement and degra
dation. Was such injustice and insult, ever of
fered to a people claiming to be freemen ? Is it
not amazing,that every Southern heart is not
fired with indignation, and every Southern arm
nerved to undying resistance ?
But I deny, that the constitution which she
presents, is a fair expression of the wishes of the
people ofCalifornia. It was concocted and urg
ed through the Convention in hot haste, without
a deliberate consultation of the popular will.—
The object of the Convention was speedy, im
mediate admission into the Union ; and they
discarded every thing which might possibly pre
sent an obstacle to its consummation. They
knew, that they could not be admitted if they
offered a eonsiitution that tolerated slavery. It
is an undeniable fact, that the people of that por
tion of California, South of the parallel of 36
deg. 30 min. North latitude, did not desire a State
organization ; they preferred the territorial con
dition, and so intruded their delegates. In proof
of this, I inseit extracts from the remarks of
gentlemen who were delegates to the Conven
tion, taken front the printed journal of its pro
ceedings.
Mr. Gwin used the following language, page
“Sir, are we not here forcing a State govern
ment upon a portion of the people ofCalifornia,
whose delegates have, by their recorded votes,
staled the fact that their constituents are unani
mously against a State government, and in favor
of a Territorial organization ? Do you not ex
pect and require that they shall sustain this gov
ernment, and become apart ofit? If not, let us
require their delegates to retire from this con
vention, ripply to Congress fora territorial gov
ernment, and exclude them from our State boun
dary. Gentlemen affect to believe that, in ta
king in a large extent ofcountry not represented
here, and from which no opposition to our action
has become known to us, we are not doing a
great ad of injustice to those people; when at
the same moment, we have here before us the
direct protest against a Slate government, of a
portion of the inhabitants of this Territory who
arc represented. But do we stop —do we refrain
from committing this act ofinjus'ico ? No, sir,
we go on and include them ; we never think of
excluding them. They bear the expense of a
Stale government, while they prefer a Territo
rial government ; but, rather than submit to a
separate organization, or run the ri-k of getting
no government at all, they waive their objection
and act with us.”
And again, page 197 :
“We all know what 36 deg. 30 min. is. It is
the great hone of contention. North of that
t here is no contest ; South ofit there is a contest.
It gentlemen will look where this linn strikes
the Pacific, they will see that not a solitary vote
was cast by a delegate in this convention South
of that line, except those cast against a State
government. The Representatives here from
that region are unanimous in their votes against
tho establishment of a State government. If w e
include the territory these delegates represent
on tho coast, why exclude the barren waste be
yond, where no w hite man lives ? \Ve take a
way the substance and leave the shadow. Let
us take the whole territory or stop at that line.
If we stop at that line, we mutilate the conven
tion by excluding the members South ofit.’’
Page 184, Mr. Semple, the President us the
Convention,said :
“I feel under some obligations to repeat a con
versation which has a direct bearing upon this
matter. There is a distinguished member ofCon
gress, who holds his seat from one of the Slates
of the Union now in California. With a desire
to obtain all the information possible in relation
to the stale of things on the other side of the
mountains, I asked him what was the desire of
tho people in Congress. 1 observed to him that
it was not the desire of the people of California
to take a larger boundary than Sierra Nevada,
and that we would prefer not embracing within
onr limits this desert waste on the East. His
reply was : “For God’s sake, leave ns no Terri
tory to legislate upon in Congress.” lie went
on to state then that the great object in our form
ation of a State government was to avoid further
legislation—there would he no question as to
our admission by adopting this course : and that
all subjects of minor importance could afterwards
be settled. 1 think it my duty to impart this in
formation to the convention. The conversation
took place between Mr. Thomas Butler King
and myself.”
Now why was it, that the people South of 36
deg. 30 min. were opposed to Stale organization
and asked not to be included within the limits of
the Stale proposed to he formed ? Why wastlie
line of 36 deg. 30 min. designated ? Is there no.
tiling significant in this fact? Can the object be
mistaken ? Does any man doubt, that it had
reference to slavery ? Can the conviction be
resisted, that they desired to decide that ques
tion for themselves, free from the controlling in
fluences ofthe populous regions of San Francis
co and the gold mines *
I must venture a single other quotation, to
show, that the people were not fully represented
in the Convention. Mr. Bolts,another delegate
held the following language, page 193 :
“Fes, sir, 1 am told there are thirty thousand
freemen in this extent of country East of the
Sierra Nevada, which you propose to include in
your limits. Are they in the district ofSomona,
or Sacramento, or Monteroy ? Thirty thousand
freemen unrepresented ! Do you know, sir, by
what vote ot my constituents I sit upon this floor?
I will tell you. 1 received ninety-six votes—l,
who am modestly requested to legislate for thirty
thousand people I never saw, am sent lure by
ninety.six vines. My colleague, it is true, who
makes this proposition, received some twenty or
thirty more ; and as for the remainder of my
colleagues, 1 believe they are even worse off
than 1 am.”
With these stubborn and significant farts bla
zoned to the world,who can say, with truth, that,
in opposing the admission of California, 1 repu
diate the doctrine, that the people of a Territory
in forming their State Constitution, have the
right to decide, for themselves, the question of
slavery? So far from litis, whilst on the one
hand, I refuse to sanction and approve the ini
quitous conduct of Congress, which has resulted
in the exclusion of the South ; on the other, I
insist, that the voice ofthe people of California,
South of 36 deg. 30 min. shall he fairly consult
ed. I insist, that it shall not he suppressed and
its utterance choked, by the heartless gan<> of
public plunderers from tho free States, who
swarm about tho gold diggings and environs of
San Francisco, like hungry vultures round a pu
trid carcass. That portion of Mr. Clay's hill
which seeks to bring in California as a State,
with her present boundaries, is to me unuttera
bly odious. I thiuk it ought to bo to every
Southern men. It is a fraud upon the South. It
is a fraud upon the people ol California, South of
35 deg. 30 min.
If that part of Mr. Clay’s hill, which establish
es Territorial governments for Utah and New
Mexico, constituted a portion of a plan of eoni
promise, otherwise acceptable, I would not hes
itate to vote for it, were lin Congress It is free
from the Wilrnot Proviso. It prohibits the Ter
| tutorial legislatures from passing any law, res
pecting the tJtablisliincnl or abolition of slavery
And, as amended, it provides, that when they
shall apply, they shall be admitted Into the L
nion, whether their constitutions permit or for
bid slavery. In a word, it leaves the question
of slavery prOcisely where it was left by the
“Clayton compromise.” While I had the honor
of a seat in the Senate of the United States, 1
voted for that bill. I did so, under the belief
then and now entertained, that by the Constitu
tion, a citizen of the South has the right to carry
liis slaves into any territory ofthe United States;
that the Mexican lais prohibitory of slavery,
w ere abrogated by the ratification of the Treaty
of peace, and therefore, whatever is recognized
as property in the States, by the Constitution,
would be construed and adjudged to be properly
by the Supreme Court, in the Territories. I
have seen no argument,from any quarter to shake
these opinions. I would, therefore, under simi
lar circumstances, give the same vole again as a
measure of compromise. But because Mr. Clay’s
scheme contains one feature which were tolera
ble, that is no sufficient reason why 1 should
sanction it as a w hole.
The admission of California, as she is, is the
grand desideratum with the free soilers. This
done, and the whole Pacific coast, with its unsur
passed harbors and incalculable commerce, and
the broad area ofCalifornia, with its inexhausta
hie mines, are secured to the grasping appetite of
Northern cupidity. They know full well, that,
flanked by Oregon on the North, and California
on the \V est —both boundless fields for the opera
tions of abolition fanaticism and rascality, Utah
and New Mexico will fall an easy prey to their
machinations. Hence, they may well afford to
forego the Wilrnot Proviso in reference to them,
when by so doing, they secure all that is most
valuable, and perhaps all that is worth a contest.
The next proposition of the so called compro
mise, is to cede to New Mexico, about 140,000
square miles of Texas, to soothe thd wrath of
free soil fanatics, who choose to believe, that the
boundary ol'the hitter does not extend to the Rio
Grande. I shall not stop to discuss the question
of boundary between Texas and New Mexico.
I believe it is properly the Rio Grande. Before
the war, ibis was a question of controversy be
tween the United States and Mexico. Since the
war, it has become a question between Texas
and the United Stales. Thus considered, the
United States, by its own acts and admissions, is
forever excluded and estopped, from deny ing the
claim of Texas to the liio Grande. The act de
claring tho war admits it. and the Treaty reco"--
nizes it. To deny and contest it now is iniqui
tous and without apology. What pretext then,
can there be for purchasing it, unless it he to
pander to the caprice of Northern fanaticism ?
I shall also waive a consideration of the con
stitutional right of Congress to make the pur
chase, and come directly to a brief statement of
my objections to the proposition.
Whatever may be the object ofthe framers of
tlie bill, its effect will be, to convert that which
is now slave, into free territory. It is to he add
ed to and form a part of New Mexico, anil thus
brought under the control of such Mexicans as
remained in that Territory after the Treaty, and
removed from under that dominant slavery in
fluence whieli now prevails in Texas. And if
such were not the design of the Committee, and
there were any sincere desire to tender a propo
sition ofComprontisc, just and fair, why not erect
this 140,060 square miles into a separate territo
rial government ? The reason is obvious. It
is now under the jurisdiction of laws which tole
rate slavery. The slaveholder ofthe South can
remove there in safely. Such Territorial organ
ization would result in the formation of one or
two if not more slave States. But this will not
do. It must he placed under the guardian care
ofthe tutelary gods who are to preside over the
fate of New Mexico.
But this proposition is worse than Punic faith
to the South. Texas vvasannexed to the United
Slates, under resolutions, solemnly recognizing
tile Missouri Compromise, by which it is stipu
lated, that such States as may bo formed South of
36 di g. 30 min , shall be admitted into the Union
with or without slavery as each State, asking ad
mission, tuay desire. Now upon what principle
of justice, can a subsequent Congress disturb and
defeat this compact ? Admitting their right, is
it equitable, is it consistent with good faith anil
public honor ? If there he a necessity for such
a purchase, (which I deny,) to quiet the ques
tion of boundary and to avert a conflict between
the Federal and State authorities, does not good
faith demand, that no disposition of the Territo
ry so purchased, should he made, hut what is
compatible with the true spirit and meaning of
the resolutions ofannexatien ? Doesit not de
mand that it be organized into a separate Terri
tory, with all the rights touching the subject of
shivery, positively and affirmatively secured,
which belong to it, under the resolutions of an
nexation ? But these overwhelming considera
lions of public moral obligation are utterly dis
regarded : Texas, poor and in debt, is sought to
he bribed into the arrangement, at the price of
some sls 000,000; and the patient, aggrieved
and humiliated South is insulted by the insolent
requisition to pay her part of the purchase mo
ney, to secure to free soil rapacity, Territory,
now under the jurisdiction of slavery laws, suffi
cient to make three States, nearly as large as
Georgia ! !
Another provision of Mr. Clay’s hill pro
hibits the slave trade in the District of Co
lumbia. This is a clear and undeniable con
cession to Northern demands, and is predicated
mainly, upon the very courteous consideration,
that it is due to the delicate and tender sensibili
ties of gentlemen, from the free States, who visit
Washington on business or pleasure To have
countenanced such a proposition, a few years
ago, would have subjected any man in the South,
to the unmitigated indignation of all men of all
parties. It was considered unconstitutional—
that Congress had no jurisdiction whatever over
ihe subject. Was that opinion tight or wrong?—
Or has tlie constitution changed? 1 read it now
as I did then. But I drop the subject without
further comment. The onus rests upon those
whom Presidential aspirants have cojolcd, to
show, that any, and w hat concession is made by
it to the South.
The surrender of this point by tlie South were
tolerable, it it would silence the yelping and
howling of the despicable pack of abolitionists.
But like the scent ofblood to the hungry panther,
it will but whet their appetite, and they will be
come louder and more tierce, in their clamors
for abolition hi the District, and ihe suppression
of the slave trade between the States. For be it
remembered, the Committee of Thirteen dis
tinctly' declined to declare, that abolition in the
District is unconstitutional, and to report a bill
for that purpose, on the ground of inexpediency.
But who does not know, by tlie history of tiie
past, that inexpediency will rapidly vanish before
the rampant zeal of an irresponsible and incon
siderate majority ? Who does not know, that it
will he consumed like stubble by the holy fire
of sueli godly politicians, as believe in an alle
giance higher than that, which they owe to the
constitution, they have sworn to support ? Per
haps it will be instructive generally, and to such
especially as favor Mr. Clay’s bill, to read the
following article, extracted from the "Liberty
Creed," of the “ A tnerienn and foreign anti-slave
ry Society,” which I find in their annual report,
adopted at a meeting held in New York on the
7th of May 1850.
“That slavery in the District of Columbia,
and in nil places under exclusive national ju
risdiction, and in all States created out of any
territory of the United States, is unconstitution
al."—Page IC6.
Yet Southern men vainly hope to quiet this
agitation, by following tlie lead of Mr. Clav, in
suppressing the slave trade in the District. I
would as soon expect to extinguish a liuriiin"
pile, by pouring oil upon the flumes
Tlie last pill, in this feculent box of nauseous
nostrums, is that in relation to the surrender of
fugitive slaves. The provision of the Constitution
touching this subject is in the foilwing words :
“No person held to service or labour in one State,
under the laws thereof escaping into another,shall
in consequence of any law or regulation therein,
he discharged from such labour or service, hut
shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to
whom such service or labor shall he due,” Sec.
2. Art. 4. The constitution was adopted by the
States in good faith, each trusting to the honor
acd fidelity of the rest, to execute its provisions
l nder this view, the framers contemplated, that
the State legislatures should, and would provide,
by law, for the capture and delivery up
of fugitive slaves. Hence, we find no
legislation, by Congress, on this subject, until
1793. That act authorised any owner or bis
agent to seize or arrest bis fugitive slave and
take him or her before any Judge of the Circuit
or District Courts of the Untied States, residing
or being within the State, or before any ma
gistrate of a county, city or town corporate,
wherein such seizure or arrest shall be made,
and show cither by oral testimony or affidavit,
that the slave so seized or ariested is his property,
and it shall he the duty of the judge or magistrate
to certify the same, which shall warrant the
master in removing his slave hack whence he
fled. It also imposed a penalty on any person
obstructing or hindering such claimants or har
boring such fugitive staves. This statute is
ample in its provisions, if the people and legisla
tures of the free States bad remained faithful to
their constitutional obligations. Instead of this
however, they threw insuperable obstacles in the
way of its execution ; and, within the last few
years, they have passed laws, imposing heavy
penalties upon any of their citizens who shall
aid the master in the recapture of his fugitive
slave. And so all-pervading in the North, is the
spirit which originated such legislation, that the
lugitive slave is harbored and protected, and, in
some instances, owners have been mobbed and
murdered, in tho attempt to regain their proper
ty. Such violations of public faith between Fo
reign States, is tt good cause of war, and would,
long ago, have engendered it. Is this the feel
ing which ought to actuate sister States, united
in the bouds of a common Union? Can the
South longer endure it ? Even Mr. Webster,
with all his anti-slavery sympathies, feels the
necessity of a speedy remedy. It is acknowl
edged by intelligent and patriotic men ofall par
ties at the North. With such a clear constitu
tional right, admitted by ail from whom truth is
to he expected, we had reason to hope, that a
Committee, raised for the avowed purpose of
compromise, would have had the magnanimity,
to offer a remedy containing no feature calcula
ted to wound the South But this could not he.
Something must be yielded here to the insatia
ble demands of Northern fanaticism. Upon the
bare affidavit ofthe negro that he is not a slave,
the master is required to enter into a heavy bond
that he shall have the benefit of trial bv jury,
when brought hack whence he escaped.
Where does Congress derive the power to
prescribe conditions upon which the master shall
reclaim his fugitive slave ? The Constitution
saj s he shall be delivered up on claim of the master.
How can Congress abridge this right by imposing
terms ?
Again : Is not such a proposition a reflection
upon the South ? Where is the necessity for it'
Have Southern men been in the habit of kid
tHipping? Is there not ample provision made,
in all the Souther Slates to protect the free man
ot colour ? In Georgia we have a statue, most
salutary and plenary in its provisions. All that
a negro claiming to he free, who is attempted to
ho held by a white man in servitude, has to do,
is to refer his petition to a Justice ofthe Inferior
Court of the Cuvnty, setting forth the facts, and
it is made his duty to enquire into them If
there he "probable ground to believe," that the
complaint >“ well founded, he is to order the no
gjo into the custody ofthe Sheriff, until the pre
tended owner shall enter into bond, with good
security,not to remove or attempt to remove such
negro, until the cause is finally adjudicated by
the Inferior Court. So far as Georgia is concerned
and I doubt not, it is true of all the Southern
States, there prevails a most wholesome state of
public opinion on this subject. It brings the
pretended owner into contempt, audit secures
the negro a fair and impartial trial. Tneu where
ihe necessity of imposing the terms offered by
this so-called Compromise ? We are told very
candidly by Mr. Clay, the chairman, in his repot l,
that it is all done, “in deference of the feelings
and prejudies which prevail in the. non-slavehold
ing States." Must we at every step we take,
dotl our hats and maka an obsequious how to
the spirit of Northern aggression?
But waiving these considerations, I verily be
lieve that this or auy other mode of recapture,
which Congress might devise, will be a dead
letter. Public sentiment anil feeling at the North
are too radically depraved and vitiated, for such
a law ever to be enforced or remain long unre
pealed. It may pass now. It may be the policy
of Northern politicians to permit it to pass, with
the view of securing the. ncquescence of the
South in the admission of California. But this
desideratum gained, and in lesss than five years,
will he repealed or so amended as to transfer the
trial by Jury, whence the slave may escape, to
that of his recapture. Then it will he a mockery
indeed. Read the following resolution, unani
’mously adopted by the American and foreign
anti-slavery Society, taken from the same from
which I have already quoted :
"Resolved, That it is our solemn conviction,
that it will he a heinous sin in us, to lend our aid
in subjecting any of our fellow-men to the atro
cities of American slavery ; and we do there
fore before God, pledge ourselves to each oilier,
that we will incur any penalties which unprinci
pled politicians in Congress may think it expe
dient to impose upon us, rather than betray a
fugitive slave, or assist in his capture.” Page 10.
With such a declaration by tliut association,
reflecting truly, as it does, the anti-slavery sen
timents of the free States—knowing how deeply
depraved is the great mass ofthe Northern mind
upon this subject, and their utter infidelity to
any Compromise which even squints towards
justice to the South, I have no hope of any effi
cient legislation by Congress.
Now, after this rapid glance at the provisions
of Mr. Clay’s bill, 1 ask what single feature of
Compromise it contains? Compromise implies
concession. \\ hat concession docs it obtain
from the North, and what concesion does itde
mand, at the hands of tlie South ? It requires
as to consent to the admission of California as
she is. It requires us to aid in the purchase of
140,000 square miles of slave territory to head
tied to New Mexico. It requires us to yield the
right to Congress to legislate on the subject of
slavery, in the District of Columbia. It requires
us to admit by implication, the right of Congress
to pass the Wilrnot Proviso—an implication ir
risistablc from tho avowel in Mr. Clay’s report,
that it was not deemed expedient or necessary,
to attach it to tho section creating temporary
governments for Utah and New Mexico. lire
quires us to enter into bonds, upon the affidavit
of our fugitive slaves, as a condition precedent
to the exercise of a plain, positive and unquali
tied constitutional right to have them delivered
up on demand. In a word, is it not obvious
from the provisions of the hill and the report of
Mr. Clay accompanying it, that it was the object
of the committee at every step to bow to, and
satisfy the prejudices, and demaud of tho nnn
slaueholdmg States? And for all those sacrifi
ces, it is said, the North foregoes the Wilrnot
Proviso as to Utah and New Mexico. Wonder
ful concession this,viewed in connexion with the
declaration of the Committee, in their report,
that the Proviso was unnecessary I And those
who do not, like Socrates, quaff this cup of hem
lock without a murmur, are branded as "fact
ists," "agitators,” and "disunionists Sirl
these ephithets have no terrors for me. f ’
whoever may be a "factionist” I feel and k no ° r
that lam not. Whoever may be an “ agitator ”
1 feel and know that I arn not. Whoever m ’
be a “ disuniunist ,” I feel and know that I ), a
been educated in sentiments of habitual rev '*
cnee for tlie Union. But it is reeerence i*’
so blind, as to make me bow down and worsh' *
it, when it is used by a heartless majority as
means of oppression and injustice. The’u’V , m
denounce this iniquitous bill, as a measure tl
ought not to satisfy the South. I will denounci
it, as a “very thinly disguised fraud upon
constitutional rights-’’ r
But this bill is offered to the South as tl
price of peace and harmony to the Unio'n. w®
are prepared to make large sacrifices for such an
object. This constant chafing and fre!n„„ •
rapidly weakening the cords which hold
ship of State to her mooring. The popular
nnnd is faint and weary, from this perpetual ex
citemcnt. The country needs repose It j
lime, that this wearing and tearing acitaimn
should cease, and that the feelings of fraternal
kindness, which animated the bosoms of tl
people, in the better days of the republic sho. M
be restored. But liberal and humiliating as ar,
these concessions, which tlie South is asked
make, will they yield the promised results’—
W ho can believe it in view of the past histor
of abolition agitation? Fificen years agotl*
cloud was not larger than a man’s hand; now it
darkens thelleavens and shakes the Earth will
its thunders. It commenced with a few i on'
temptible societies, composed of fanatics and sill'
women, hut now, they have multiplied and ij
creased, like the frogs and lice of Egypt, i n ,j "
days of God’s vengeance, until the whole land
North is infested. Public sentiment is under
their control, and politicians and statesmen court
their favor and obey their behests. The South
has yielded to their demands and submitted to
their insolence, until they now not only require
the exclusion wf slavery from all tlie Territories
and its abolition in the District of Columbia’
forts, dockyards, &c., but universal emancipa
tion is openly avowed as their object. I have
before me the “Annual Report ofthe American
and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society,” adopted at
a meeting, held in New York on the 7th of May
1850, front which I have already made extracts’
It is a volume of 172 pages, drawn up wish
ability, and no doubt, faithfully reflects the anti
slavery sentiments and designs ofthe free States
of this Union. It contains a statistical account
ofthe action of nearly every religious and eccle
siastical association in the free States, showing
their deep wrought hostility to the institution of
slavery, and their unalterable determination,
never to cease their labors until it shall be abol
ished. And from a review of tho whole, the
report draws this general and striking conclusion:
“Hay ing taken this annual survey of tho anti
slavery cause, we are, in view ofit, constrained
to believe that it is steadily advancing— that
slavery is generally noio considered a doomed
institution, and that ere long it will be universally
treated as a disgrace, a reproach and a curse. ’
Page 152.
The Society recommended the Executive
Committee to appoint collectors in the different
States to solicit funds to enable them to send
agents and publications into the new Territories.
It endorsed the infamous sentiment of Senator
Seward, by the following resolution :
"Resolved, That in the language of Senator
Seward “there is a higher Jaw than the Consti
tution ;” and in the language of Sir William
Blackstone, “no human laws are ofany validity,
if contrary to this ;’’ and that ail compromises
between right and wrong, and all statutes which
are repugnant to humanity and justice are null
and void.”
It is evident from these and a thousand other
proofs, that the anti slavery sentiment of the free
States, is based upon tlieir construction of reli
gious obligation. It is embodied in tlieirchurch
creeds. They eschew fellowship or communion
ns Christians, with slaveholders or the apologists
of slaveholders. They hold that slavery is an
outrage upon humanity, contrary to the spirit of
the age and of republican government, and a sin
against God. They so teach liieirehiltlmn from
the nursery up to the College. The sentiment
feints all their juvenile literature, and findsiis, s
place in their higher text books. They are uni
ted, systematic, untiring, zealous and far reach
ing in their operations They have declared a
war of extermination against the institution of
slavery, wherever it exists, and they fight with
the spirit of martyrdom. Now, 1 ask, what is
there in Mr. Clay's bill, which will check, fur
one moment, their operations either in or out of
Congress ? Let any man, if he can, point to a
single feature, which gives aid or strength to the
South, in this fearful contest. What confidence
can we repose in the compromises of a people,
who tolerate the principle, that “there is a
power higher than the Constitution,” in obedi
ence to which, they are bound to contend for
universal emancipation ? If they will set at
nought the Constitution, will they be likely to
abide a compromise * No, no ; and most espe
cially if it bejust to tho South. What possible
inducement can tlie South have, to vote tor a bill
which am renders nil and leaves the storm yet
abroad, unabated in its anger?
But Igo further.— This bill is not only impo
tent to restore harmony and repose to the coun
try, but if it should become n law, I verily be
lieve it will be the death knell of the Union. It
is true, the South may submit to it for the pres
ent. There may be no immediate convulsion,
leading to revolution or secession. The masses
at the South love the L’nion ; and while evils
are in tho misty distance, and do not come home
with tangible reality to thetr hearthstones and
interests, they are disposed to put off the evil
day. But let Mr. Clay's hill become a law, and
by its operation all tlie territory of the United
States appropriated to free soil; and the child is
now born who will see the day, when the South
must choose between dissolution and abolition
in the States. Upon this appalling proposition,
I must present but a single fact. According to
recent estimates, the Territories of the United
States, outside of the Stales, contain about
1,862,000 square miles. This will make
thirty-seven States of 50,000 square miles
each. It may never be dividod into so many,
but having the majority in Congress, the aboli
tionists will be quite sure to make as many new
States out of the territories, as will secure to
them two-thirds in both houses of Congress. —
This is already foreshadowed by the amendment
offered by Mr. Halo of New Hampshire, and
adopted by the Senate, providing for the future
division of California into several States. —
Docs any man doubt that this will he the result,
if slavery is excluded ? How can lie doubt, in
\ ievv of the Zealand avowed object of the abo
litionists? If they hud the power, does any
man doubt, tint they would exercise it? IDlie
Constitution should present any obstacle, would
they not amend it to suit their own policy and
purposes? Herelhare this point. Let South
ern men ponder it. If they love the South,—
if they love the Union, let them dash from then
touch this odious bill, ns they would a squalu
reptile; for its very breuth is deadly poison to
both. »
The above paragraph explains the emphasis o
the remark in the first part of this communica
tion, that tho South ought to accept no compro
mise, wich docs not secure to her a portion °J
these territories, and give finality to the contro .'
rersy. Nothing will effect this object wluc 1
docs not preserve the equal strength of I ®
South in tho Senate of tho United States. * c r
is the only liopo of tho South. In tho K c P r
snntativc branch of Congress, wc arc a rr ‘'
overpowered. The equilibrium between
North and South, in the Senate, must o I
