Diary of Edward Bates, May 21, 1859

Slavery in the District of Columbia.

It is strange to see how suddenly and totally men and parties do change their opinions upon even great constitutional questions, when they become party questions[.]

In Benton's Abridged Debates. Vol 9. p 415 (12 Feb: 1827) it appears that Mr. Barney⁵⁷ presented a petition of Citizens of Maryland, for the abolition of Slavery in the District, — and moved that it be printed &c.

Mr. McDuffie⁵⁸ opposed — He thought it impertenent [sic] in citizens of the States to meddle in the matter &c: It belonged exclusively to the people of the District &c [.] He considered Slavery a deplorable evil, and when the People of the District petitioned to get rid of it, he would be as ready as any man to grant their request &c.

It was but a few years afterwards that leading partizans thought it necessary to change the doctrine, so clearly announced by Mr. McD.[uffie] in both particulars — 1st. They now deny that the Existence of Slavery in the District ought to depend upon the wishes of the people there — and 2d. They deny the Power of Congress to abolish it. —

In the Territories

Formerly, nobody questioned the Power of Congress, but it was considered a matter of expediency only; and consequently it was disputed on grounds of policy only — Now, the Southern Democracy is in such a strait, that it is driven to the most revolting absurdities : But that is alway [s] so when men are resolved to maintain a known wrong against a known right — They insist that the Constitution, proprio vigore, carries slavery into the Territories — According to this new light, the constitution (which most of that party affect to consider only a League between the States) is the local law in the Territories. Slavery being carried into the Territories by the constitution, of Course Congress has no power to expel it, and cannot delegate the power to the Territorial Legislature, nor to the People — and the people themselves have no such power — And so, there is no power on Earth to abolish slavery in the Territories!!

The argumentum ad absurdum used to be thought a sufficient refutation— not so now. Junius⁵⁹ was half right in saying that "When a man is determined to believe, the very absurdity of his doctrine confirms his faith."

The constitution, I suppose, is the Law of the States which made it and exist in Union by it; and is not law [sic] the Law of the Territories, which are subject acquests; And yet, according [to] these learned Thebans, it carries slavery into the Territories, where it is not law, but does not carry it into Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, where it is law!

Those who hold that belief may well say — "Credo quia impossible est."⁶⁰

_______________

⁵⁷ John Barney, Federalist congressman from Maryland, 1825-1829.

⁵⁸ George McDuffle of South Carolina: anti-Jackson Democratic congressman, 1821-1834; governor, 1834-1836 ; U. S. senator, 1842-1846.

⁵⁹ Infra, May 25, 1865, note 25.

⁶⁰ Bates does not seem to have quoted accurately. St. Augustine in his Confessions VI. 5. (7) said " Credo quia absurdum est," and Tertullian in Be Come Christi (Chap. V, part II) said, "Certum est quia impossibile est." But then Bates seldom did quote exactly.

SOURCE: Howard K. Beale, Editor, Annual Report of The American Historical Association For The Year 1930, Vol. 4, The Diary Of Edward Bates, pp. 16-7