We, whose names are
hereunto annexed, address you in discharge of what we believe to be a
solemn duty, on the most important subject ever presented for your
consideration. We allude to the conflict between the two great sections of the
Union, growing out of a difference of feeling and opinion
in reference to the relation existing between the two races, the European and
African, which inhabit the southern section, and the acts of aggression
and encroachment to which it has led.
The conflict
commenced not long after the acknowledgment of our independence, and
has gradually increased until it has arrayed the great body of the
North against the South on this most vital subject. In the progress of this
conflict, aggression has followed aggression, and encroachment encroachment,
until they have reached a point when a regard for your peace and safety will
not permit us to remain longer silent. The object of this address is
to give you a clear, correct, but brief account of the whole
series of aggression and encroachments on your rights, with a
statement of the dangers to which they expose you. Our object in
making it is not to cause excitement, but to put you in full possession of all
the facts and circumstances necessary to a full and just conception of a
deep-seated disease, which threatens great danger to you and the whole body
politic. We act on the impression, that in a popular government like ours, a
true conception of the actual character and state of a
disease is indispensable to effecting a cure.
We have made it a
joint address, because we believe that the magnitude of the subject
required that it should assume the most impressive and solemn form.
Not to go further
back, the difference of opinion and feeling in reference to the
relation between the two races, disclosed itself in the Convention that framed
the Constitution, and constituted one of the greatest difficulties in
forming it. After many efforts, it was overcome by a compromise, which provided
in the first place, that representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned
among the States according to their respective numbers; and that, in
ascertaining the number of each, five slaves shall be estimated as
three. In the next, that slaves escaping into States where slavery does not
exist, shall not be discharged from servitude, but shall be delivered up on
claim of the party to whom their labor or service is due. In the
third place, that Congress shall not prohibit the importation of slaves
before the year 1808; but a tax not exceeding ten dollars may be imposed on
each imported. And finally, that no capitation or direct tax shall be laid, but
in proportion to federal numbers; and that no amendment of the
Constitution, prior to 1808, shall affect this provision, nor that relating to
the importation of slaves.
So satisfactory were
these provisions, that the second, relative to the delivering up of fugitive
slaves, was adopted unanimously, and all the rest, except the third, relative
to the importation of slaves until 1808, with almost equal unanimity.
They recognize the existence of slavery, and make a specific
provision for its protection where it was supposed to be the most exposed. They
go further, and incorporate it, as an important element, in determining the
relative weight of the several States in the Government of the
Union, and the respective burden they should bear in laying capitation and
direct taxes. It was well understood at the time, that without them the
Constitution would not have been adopted by the Southern States, and of course
that they constituted elements so essential to the system that it never would
have existed without them. The Northern States, knowing all this, ratified the
Constitution, thereby pledging their faith, that faith has been kept and that
pledge redeemed we shall next proceed to show.
With few
exceptions of no great importance, the South had no cause to complain
prior to the year 1819—a year, it is to be feared, destined to mark a
train of events, bringing with them many, and great, and fatal
disasters, on the country and its institutions. With it commenced the agitating
debate on the question of the admission of Missouri into
the Union. We shall pass by for the present this question, and others of the
same kind, directly growing out of it, and shall proceed to consider
the effects of that spirit of discord, which it roused up
between the two sections. It first disclosed itself in the North, by hostility
to that portion of the Constitution which provides for the delivering
up of fugitive slaves. In its progress it led to the adoption of hostile
acts, intended to render it of non-effect, and with so much success
that it may be regarded now as practically expunged from the Constitution. How
this has been effected will be next explained.
After a careful
examination, truth constrains us to say, that it has been by a clear and
palpable evasion of the Constitution. It is impossible for any
provision to be more free from ambiguity or doubt. It is in the following
words: "No person held to service, or labor, in one State, under the laws
thereof, escaping into another State, shall, in consequence of any
law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall
be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor
may be due." All is clear. There is not an uncertain or equivocal word to
be found in the whole provision. What shall not be done, and what shall be
done, are fully and explicitly set forth. The former provides that the fugitive
slave shall not be discharged from his servitude by any law or regulation of the
State wherein he is found; and the latter, that he shall be delivered up on
claim of his owner.
We do not deem it
necessary to undertake to refute the sophistry and subterfuges by which so
plain a provision of the Constitution has been evaded, and, in
effect, annulled. It constitutes an essential part of the
constitutional compact, and of course of the supreme
law of the land. As such it is binding on all, the Federal and State
Governments, the States and the individuals composing them. The sacred
obligation of compact, and the solemn injunction of the
supreme law, which legislators and judges, both Federal and State, are bound by
oath to support, all unite to enforce its fulfilment, according to its plain
meaning and true intent. What that meaning and intent are, there was no
diversity of opinion in the better days of the Republic,
prior to 1819. Congress, State Legislatures, State and Federal Judges and
Magistrates, and people, all spontaneously placed the same interpretation on
it. During that period none interposed impediments in the way of the
owner seeking to recover his fugitive slave; nor did any deny his right to have
every proper facility to enforce his claim to have him delivered up. It was
then nearly as easy to recover one found in a Northern State, as one found in a
neighboring Southern State. But this has passed away, and the provision is
defunct, except perhaps in two States.1
When we take into
consideration the importance and clearness of this provision, the
evasion by which it has been set aside may fairly be regarded as one of the
most fatal blows ever received by the South and the Union. This cannot be more
concisely and correctly stated, than it has been by two of the
learned judges of the Supreme Court of the United States.
In one of his decisions2 Judge Story said:
"Historically it is well known that the object of this clause
was to secure to the citizens of the slaveholding States the complete
right and title of ownership in their slaves, as property, in every
State of the Union, into which they might escape, from the State
wherein they were held in servitude." "The full recognition of this
right and title was indispensable to the security of this
species of property, in all the slaveholding States, and, indeed, was
so vital to the preservation of their interests and institutions,
that it cannot be doubted, that it constituted a fundamental article without
the adoption of which the Union would not have been formed. Its true
design was to guard against the doctrines and principles prevalent in the
non-slaveholding States, by preventing them from intermeddling with, or
restricting, or abolishing the rights of the owners of slaves."
Again: "The
clause was therefore of the last importance to the safety and
security of the Southern States, and could not be surrendered by them
without endangering their whole property in slaves. The clause was accordingly
adopted in the Constitution by the unanimous consent of the framers of it—a
proof at once of its intrinsic and practical necessity."
Again: "The
clause manifestly contemplates the existence of a positive
unqualified right on the part of the owner of the slave,
which no State law or regulation can in any way regulate, control, qualify, or
restrain."
The opinion of the
other learned judges was not less emphatic as to the importance of this
provision and the unquestionable right of the South under it. Judge
Baldwin, in charging the jury, said:3 "If there are any
rights of property which can be enforced, if one citizen have any
rights of property which are inviolable under the protection of the
supreme law of the State, and the Union, they are those which have
been set at nought by some of these defendants. As the owner of property,
which he had a perfect right to possess, protect, and take away—as a
citizen of a sister State, entitled to all the privileges and
immunities of citizens of any other States—Mr. Johnson
stands before you on ground which cannot be taken from under him—it is the same
ground on which the Government itself is based. If the defendants can be
justified, we have no longer law or government." Again, after referring
more particularly to the provision for delivering up fugitive slaves, he said:
"Thus you see, that the foundations of the Government are laid,
and rest on the right of property in slaves. The whole structure must
fall by disturbing the corner-stone."
These are grave and
solemn and admonitory words, from a high source. They confirm all for which the
South has ever contended, as to the clearness, importance, and fundamental
character of this provision, and the disastrous consequences which
would inevitably follow from its violation. But in spite of these
solemn warnings, the violation, then commenced, and which they were intended to
rebuke, has been full and perfectly consummated. The citizens of the
South, in their attempt to recover their slaves, now meet, instead of aid
and co-operation, resistance in every form; resistance from hostile acts of legislation,
intended to baffle and defeat their claims by all sorts of devices,
and by interposing every description of impediment—resistance from
judges and magisrates—and finally, when all these fail, from mobs,
composed of whites and blacks, which, by threats or force, rescue the
fugitive slave from the possession of his rightful owner. The attempt
to recover a slave, in most of the Northern States, cannot now be
made without the hazard of insult, heavy pecuniary loss,
imprisonment, and even of life itself. Already has a worthy
citizen of Maryland lost his life4 in making an attempt to
enforce his claim to a fugitive slave under this provision.
But a
provision of the Constitution may be violated indirectly as well as
directly; by doing an act in its nature inconsistent with that which is
enjoined to be done. Of the form of violation, there is a
striking instance connected with the provision under consideration. We allude
to secret combinations which are believed to exist in many of the
Northern States, whose object is to entice, decoy, entrap, inveigle, and seduce
slaves to escape from their owners, and to pass them secretly and rapidly, by
means organized for the purpose, into Canada, where they will be beyond the
reach of the provision. That to entice a slave, by whatever artifice,
to abscond from his owner, into a non-slaveholding State, with the intention to
place him beyond the reach of the provision, or prevent his recovery,
by concealment or otherwise, is as completely repugnant to it, as its open
violation would be, is too clear to admit of doubt or to require illustration.
And yet, as repugnant as these combinations are to the true intent of the
provision, it is believed, that, with the above exception, not one of the
States, within whose limits they exist, has adopted any measure to suppress
them, or to punish those by whose agency the object for which they were formed
is carried into execution. On the contrary, they have looked on, and witnessed
with indifference, if not with secret approbation, a great number of slaves
enticed from their owners, and placed beyond the possibility of recovery,
to the great annoyance and heavy pecuniary loss of the bordering
Southern States.
When we take into
consideration the great importance of this provision, the
absence of all uncertainty as to its true meaning and intent, the
many guards by which it is surrounded to protect and enforce it, and then
reflect how completely the object for which it was inserted in the Constitution
is defeated by these two-fold infractions, we doubt, taking all together,
whether a more flagrant breach of faith is to be found on record. We
know the language we have used is strong, but it is not less true than strong.
There remains to be
noticed another class of aggressive acts of a kindred
character, but which instead of striking at an express and specific
provision of the Constitution, aims directly at destroying the
relation between the two races at the South, by means subversive in their
tendency of one of the ends for which the Constitution was
established. We refer to the systematic agitation of the question by
the Abolitionists, which, commencing about 1835, is still continued in all
possible forms. Their avowed intention is to bring about a state of things
that will force emancipation on the South. To unite the North in fixed
hostility to slavery in the South, and to excite discontent among the slaves
with their condition, are among the means employed to effect it. With a view to
bring about the former, every means are resorted to in order to render the
South, and the relation between the two races there, odious and hateful to the
North. For this purpose societies and newspapers are everywhere established,
debating clubs opened, lecturers employed, pamphlets and other publications,
pictures and petitions to Congress, resorted to, and directed to that single
point, regardless of truth or decency; while the circulation of incendiary
publications in the South, the agitation of the subject of abolition
in Congress, and the employment of emissaries are relied on to excite
discontent among the slaves. This agitation, and the use of these means,
have been continued with more or less activity for a series of years,
not without doing much towards effecting the object intended. We regard both
object and means to be aggressive and dangerous to the rights of the
South, and subversive, as stated, of one of the ends for
which the Constitution was established. Slavery is a domestic institution. It
belongs to the States, each for itself to decide, whether it shall be
established or not; and if it be established, whether it should be abolished or
not. Such being the clear and unquestionable right of the States, it
follows necessarily that it would be a flagrant act of aggression on a State,
destructive of its rights, and subversive of its
independence, for the Federal Government, or one or more States, or their
people, to undertake to force on it the emancipation of its slaves.
But it is a sound maxim in politics, as well as law and morals, that no one has
a right to do that indirectly which he cannot do directly, and it may be added
with equal truth, to aid, or abet, or countenance another in doing it. And yet
the Abolitionists of the North, openly avowing their intention, and
resorting to the most efficient means for the purpose, have been attempting to
bring about a state of things to force the Southern States to
emancipate their slaves, without any act on the part of any Northern
State to arrest or suppress the means by which they propose to accomplish it.
They have been permitted to pursue their object and to use whatever means they
please, if without aid or countenance, also without resistance or
disapprobation. What gives a deeper shade to the whole affair, is the fact,
that one of the means to effect their object, that of exciting
discontent among our slaves, tends directly to subvert what its preamble
declares to be one of the ends for which the Constitution was
ordained and established: "to insure domestic tranquillity," and that
in the only way in which domestic tranquillity is likely ever to be disturbed
in the South. Certain it is, that an agitation so systematic—having such an
object in view, and sought to be carried into execution by such means—would,
between independent nations, constitute just cause of remonstrance by
the party against which the aggression was directed, and if not heeded, an
appeal to arms for redress. Such being the case where an aggression of the
kind takes place among independent nations, how much more aggravated must it be
between confederated States, where the Union precludes an appeal to arms, while
it affords a medium through which it can operate with vastly increased force
and effect? That it would be perverted to such a use, never entered into the
imagination of the generation which formed and adopted the Constitution,
and, if it had been supposed it would, it is certain that the South never would
have adopted it.
We now return to the
question of the admission of Missouri into the Union, and
shall proceed to give a brief sketch of the occurrences connected
with it, and the consequences to which it has directly led. In the latter
part of 1819, the then territory of Missouri applied to
Congress, in the usual form, for leave to form a State Constitution and
Government, in order to be admitted into the Union. A bill was reported for the
purpose, with the usual provisions in such cases. Amendments were offered,
having for their object to make it a condition of her admission, that
her Constitution should have a provision to prohibit slavery. This brought on
the agitating debate, which, with the effects that followed, has done so much
to alienate the South and North, and endanger our political institutions. Those
who objected to the amendments, rested their opposition on the high
grounds of the right of self-government. They claimed that
a territory, having reached the period when it is proper for it to form a Constitution
and Government for itself, becomes fully vested with all the rights of self-government;
and that even the condition imposed on it by the Federal Constitution, relates
not to the formation of its Constitution and Government, but its
admission into the Union. For that purpose, it provides as a condition, that
the Government must be Republican.
They claimed that
Congress has no right to add to this condition, and that to assume it would be
tantamount to the assumption of the right to make its entire
Constitution and Government; as no limitation could be imposed, as to the
extent of the right, if it be admitted that it exists at all. Those
who supported the amendment denied these grounds, and claimed the right of Congress
to impose, at discretion, what conditions it pleased. In this agitating debate,
the two sections stood arrayed against each other; the South in favor of the
bill without amendment, and the North opposed to it without it. The debate and
agitation continued until the session was well advanced; but it became
apparent, towards its close, that the people of Missouri were fixed
and resolved in their opposition to the proposed condition, and that they would
certainly reject it, and adopt a Constitution without it, should the bill pass
with the condition. Such being the case, it required no great effort of mind
to perceive, that Missouri, once in possession of a Constitution and
Government, not simply on paper, but with legislators elected, and officers
appointed, to carry them into effect, the grave questions would be presented,
whether she was of right a Territory or State; and, if the latter,
whether Congress had the right, and, if the right, the power, to abrogate her
Constitution, disperse her legislature, and to remand her back to the
territorial condition. These were great, and, under the circumstances, fearful
questions—too fearful to be met by those who had raised the agitation. From
that time the only question was, how to escape from the difficulty.
Fortunately, a means was afforded. A Compromise (as it was called) was offered,
based on the terms, that the North should cease to oppose the admission of Missouri
on the grounds for which the South contended, and that the provisions of the
Ordinance of 1787, for the government of the Northwestern
Territory, should be applied to all the territory acquired by the United States
from France under the treaty of Louisiana lying North of 36°
30', except the portion lying in the State of Missouri. The Northern
members embraced it; and although not originating with them, adopted it as
their own. It was forced through Congress by the almost united votes of the
North, against a minority consisting almost entirely of members from
the Southern States.
Such was the
termination of this, the first conflict, under the Constitution,
between the two sections, in reference to slavery in connection with the
territories. Many hailed it as a permanent and final adjustment that would
prevent the recurrence of similar conflicts; but others, less
sanguine, took the opposite and more gloomy view, regarding it as the
precursor of a train of events which might rend the Union
asunder, and prostrate our political system. One of these was the
experienced and sagacious Jefferson. Thus far, time would seem to favor his
forebodings. May a returning sense of justice and a protecting
Providence, avert their final fulfilment.
For many years the subject of slavery
in reference to the territories ceased to agitate the country. Indications,
however, connected with the question of annexing Texas, showed
clearly that it was ready to break out again, with redoubled violence, on some
future occasion. The difference in the case of Texas was adjusted by
extending the Missouri compromise line of 36° 30', from its terminus,
on the western boundary of the Louisiana purchase, to the western
boundary of Texas. The agitation again ceased for a short period.
The war with Mexico
soon followed, and that terminated in the acquisition of New Mexico
and Upper California, embracing an area equal to about one half of the
entire valley of the Mississippi. If to this we add the portion of Oregon
acknowledged to be ours by the recent treaty with England, our whole territory
on the Pacific and west of the Rocky Mountains will be found to be in
extent but little less than that vast valley. The near prospect of so
great an addition rekindled the excitement between the North and South in
reference to slavery in its connection with the territories, which has become,
since those on the Pacific were acquired, more universal and intense than ever.
The effects have
been to widen the difference between the two sections, and to give a more
determined and hostile character to their conflict. The North no longer
respects the Missouri compromise line, although adopted by their almost unanimous
vote. Instead of compromise, they avow that their determination is to
exclude slavery from all the territories of the United States,
acquired, or to be acquired; and, of course, to prevent the
citizens of the Southern States from emigrating with their property
in slaves into any of them. Their object, they allege, is to prevent
the extension of slavery, and ours to extend it, thus making the
issue between them and us to be the naked question, shall slavery be extended
or not? We do not deem it necessary, looking to the object of this
address, to examine the question so fully discussed at the last session,
whether Congress has the right to exclude the citizens of the South
from immigrating with their property into territories belonging to the
confederated States of the Union. What we propose in this connection
is, to make a few remarks on what the North alleges, erroneously, to be the
issue between us and them.
So far from
maintaining the doctrine, which the issue implies, we hold that the Federal
Government has no right to extend or restrict slavery, no more than to
establish or abolish it; nor has it any right whatever to distinguish between
the domestic institutions of one State, or section, and another, in
order to favor the one and discourage the other. As the federal
representative of each and all the States, it is bound to deal out,
within the sphere of its powers, equal and exact justice and favor to
all. To act otherwise, to undertake to discriminate between the domestic
institutions of one and another, would be to act in total
subversion of the end for which it was established—to be the common
protector and guardian of all. Entertaining these opinions, we ask
not, as the North alleges we do, for the extension of slavery. That
would make a discrimination in our favor, as unjust and unconstitutional as the
discrimination they ask against us in their favor. It is not for them, nor for
the Federal Government to determine, whether our domestic institution is good
or bad; or whether it should be repressed or preserved. It belongs to us, and
us only, to decide such questions. What then we do insist on, is, not to extend
slavery, but that we shall not be prohibited from immigrating with our
property, into the Territories of the United States, because we are
slaveholders; or, in other words, that we shall not on that account be
disfranchised of a privilege possessed by all others, citizens and
foreigners, without discrimination as to character, profession, or color. All,
whether savage, barbarian, or civilized, may freely enter and remain, we only
being excluded.
We rest our claim,
not only on the high grounds above stated, but also on the solid
foundation of right, justice, and equality. The territories
immediately in controversy—New Mexico and California—were acquired by the
common sacrifice and efforts of all the States, towards which the
South contributed far more than her full share of men,5 to
say nothing of money, and is, of course, on every
principle of right, justice, fairness, and equality, entitled to
participate fully in the benefits to be derived from their acquisition. But as
impregnable as is this ground, there is another not. less so. Ours is a Federal
Government—a Government in which not individuals, but States, as distinct
sovereign communities, are the constituents. To them, as members of the
Federal Union, the territories belong; and they are hence declared to be
territories belonging to the United States. The States, then, are the joint
owners. Now it is conceded by all writers on the subject, that in all such
Governments their members are all equal—equal in rights and equal in dignity.
They also concede that this equality constitutes the basis of such
Government, and that it cannot be destroyed without changing their nature and
character. To deprive, then, the Southern States and their citizens of their
full share in territories declared to belong to them, in common with the other
States, would be in derogation of the equality belonging to them as
members of a Federal Union, and sink them, from being equals, into a
subordinate and dependent condition. Such are the solid and impregnable grounds
on which we rest our demand to an equal participation in the territories.
But as solid and
impregnable as they are in the eyes of justice and reason, they
oppose a feeble resistance to a majority, determined to engross the whole. At
the last session of Congress, a bill was passed, establishing a
territorial government for Oregon, excluding slavery therefrom. The President
gave his sanction to the bill, and sent a special message to Congress assigning
his reasons for doing so. These reasons presupposed that the Missouri
compromise was to be, and would be, extended west of the Rocky
Mountains, to the Pacific Ocean. And the President intimated his intention in
his message to veto any future bill that should restrict slavery south of the
line of that compromise. Assuming it to have been the purpose and
intention of the North to extend the Missouri compromise line as
above indicated, the passage of the Oregon bill could only be
regarded as evincing the acquiescence of the South in that line. But
the developments of the present session of Congress have
made it manifest to all, that no such purpose or intention now exists with the
North to any considerable extent. Of the truth of this, we
have ample evidence in what has occurred already in the House of Representatives,
where the popular feelings are soonest and most intensely felt.
Although Congress
has been in session but little more than one month, a greater number of measures of an
aggressive character have been introduced, and they more aggravated and
dangerous, than have been for years before. And what clearly discloses whence
they take their origin, is the fact, that they all relate to the territorial
aspect of the subject of slavery, or some other of a
nature and character intimately connected with it.
The first of this
series of aggressions is a resolution introduced by a member from
Massachusetts, the object of which is to repeal all acts which
recognize the existence of slavery, or authorize the selling and
disposing of slaves in this District. On question of leave
to bring in a bill, the votes stood 69 for and 82 against leave. The next was a
resolution offered by a member from Ohio, instructing the Committee on
Territories to report forthwith bills for excluding slavery from California and
New Mexico.6 It passed by a vote of 107 to 80. That was
followed by a bill introduced by another member from Ohio, to take the
votes of the inhabitants of this District, on the question
whether slavery within its limits should be abolished.
The bill provided,
according to the admission of the mover, that free negroes and slaves
should vote. On the question to lay the bill on the table, the votes stood, for
106, against 79. To this succeeded the resolution of a member from
New York, in the following words:
"Whereas
the traffic now prosecuted in this metropolis of the Republic in
human beings, as chattels, is contrary to natural justice and the fundamental
principles of our political system, and is notoriously a reproach to our
country, throughout Christendom, and a serious hinderance to the progress of republican
liberty among the nations of the earth. Therefore,
"Resolved, That the Committee for the
District of Columbia be instructed to report a bill, as soon as
practicable, prohibiting the slave trade in said District."
On the
question of adopting the resolution, the votes stood 98 for, and 88
against. He was followed by a member from Illinois, who offered a resolution
for abolishing slavery in the Territories, and all places where Congress has
exclusive powers of legislation, that is, in all forts, magazines,
arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings, purchased by Congress with
the consent of the Legislature of the State.
This resolution was
passed over under the rules of the House without being put to vote.
The votes in
favor of all these measures were confined to the members from the
Northern States. True, there are some patriotic members from that section who
voted against all of them, and whose high sense of justice
is duly appreciated; who in the progress of the aggressions upon the
South have, by their votes, sustained the guaranties of the
Constitution, and of whom we regret to say many have been sacrificed
at home by their patriotic course.
We have now brought
to a close a narrative of the series of acts of aggression
and encroachment, connected with the subject of this address,
including those that are consummated and those still in progress. They are
numerous, great, and dangerous, and threaten with destruction the greatest and
most vital of all the interests and institutions of the
South. Indeed, it may be doubted whether there is a single provision,
stipulation, or guaranty of the Constitution, intended for the security of the
South, that has not been rendered almost perfectly nugatory. It may even be
made a serious question, whether the encroachments already made, without the
aid of any other, would not, if permitted to operate unchecked, end in
emancipation, and that at no distant day. But be that as it may, it hardly
admits of a doubt that, if the aggressions already commenced in the
House, and now in progress, should be consummated, such in the end would
certainly be the consequence.
Little, in truth,
would be left to be done after we have been excluded from all the territories,
including those to be hereafter acquired; after slavery is abolished in this
District and in the numerous places dispersed all over the South, where
Congress has the exclusive right of legislation, and after the other
measures proposed are consummated. Every outpost and barrier would be carried,
and nothing would be left but to finish the work of abolition at
pleasure in the States themselves. This District, and all places over which
Congress has exclusive power of legislation, would be asylums for fugitive
slaves, where, as soon as they placed their feet, they would become, according
to the doctrines of our Northern assailants, free, unless there
should be some positive enactments to prevent it.
Under such a
state of things the probability is, that emancipation would soon
follow, without any final act to abolish slavery. The depressing effects of such
measures on the white race at the South, and the hope they would create in the
black of a speedy emancipation, would produce a state of feeling
inconsistent with the much longer continuance of the existing
relations between the two. But be that as it may, it is certain, if
emancipation did not follow, as a matter of course, the final act in
the States would not be long delayed. The want of constitutional power
would oppose a feeble resistance. The great body of the North is
united against our peculiar institution. Many believe it to be sinful, and the
residue, with inconsiderable exceptions, believe it to be wrong. Such being the
case, it would indicate a very superficial knowledge of human nature,
to think that, after aiming at abolition, systematically, for so many years, and
pursuing it with such unscrupulous disregard of law and Constitution,
that the fanatics who have led the way and forced the great body of the
North to follow them, would, when the finishing stroke only remained to be
given, voluntarily suspend it, or permit any constitutional scruples or
considerations of justice to arrest it. To these may be added an
aggression, though not yet commenced, long meditated and threatened to prohibit
what the abolitionists call the internal slave trade, meaning thereby the
transfer of slaves from one State to another, from whatever motive
done, or however effected. Their object would seem to be to render them
worthless by crowding them together where they are, and thus hasten the
work of emancipation. There is reason for believing that it will soon
follow those now in progress, unless, indeed, some decisive step should be
taken in the mean time to arrest the whole.
The question then
is, Will the measures of aggression proposed in the House be adopted?
They may not, and
probably will not be this session. But when we take into consideration, that
there is a majority now in favor of one of them, and a
strong minority in favor of the other, so far as the sense of the
House has been taken; that there will be in all probability a considerable
increase in the next Congress of the vote in favor of them,
and that it will be largely increased in the next succeeding Congress under the
census to be taken next year, it amounts almost to a certainty that they will
be adopted, unless some decisive measure is taken in advance to prevent it.
But, if even these
conclusions should prove erroneous—if fanaticism and the love of power
should, contrary to their nature, for once respect constitutional barriers, or
if the calculations of policy should retard the adoption of these
measures, or even defeat them altogether, there would be still left one certain
way to accomplish their object, if the determination avowed by the North to
monopolize all the territories, to the exclusion of the South, should
be carried into effect. That of itself would, at no distant day, add
to the North a sufficient number of States to give her three
fourths of the whole; when, under the color of an
amendment of the Constitution, she would emancipate our slaves,
however opposed it might be to its true intent.
Thus, under every
aspect, the result is certain, if aggression be not promptly and decidedly met.
How it is to be met, it is for you to decide.
Such then being the
case, it would be to insult you to suppose you could hesitate. To destroy the
existing relation between the free and servile races at the South would lead to
consequences unparalleled in history. They cannot be separated, and cannot live
together in peace, or harmony, or to their mutual advantage, except in their
present relation. Under any other, wretchedness, and misery, and desolation
would overspread the whole South. The example of the British West
Indies, as blighting as emancipation has proved to them, furnishes a very faint
picture of the calamities it would bring on the South. The
circumstances under which it would take place with us, would be entirely
different from those which took place with them, and calculated to lead to far
more disastrous results. There the Government of the parent country
emancipated slaves in her colonial possessions—a Government rich and powerful,
and actuated by views of policy (mistaken as they turned out to be),
rather than fanaticism. It was besides, disposed to act justly towards the
owners, even in the act of emancipating their slaves, and to protect
and foster them afterwards. It accordingly appropriated nearly $100,000,000 as
a compensation to them for their losses under the act, which sum, although it
turned out to be far short of the amount, was thought at the time to
be liberal. Since the emancipation, it has kept up a sufficient military and
naval force to keep the blacks in awe, and a number of magistrates, and
constables, and other civil officers, to keep order in the towns and on
plantations, and enforce respect to their former owners. To a considerable
extent these have served as a substitute for the police formerly kept on the
plantations by the owners and their overseers, and to preserve the social and
political superiority of the white race. But, notwithstanding all
this, the British West India possessions are ruined, impoverished, miserable,
wretched, and destined probably to be abandoned to the black race.
Very different would
be the circumstances under which emancipation would take place with us. If it
ever should be effected, it will be through the agency of the Federal
Government, controlled by the dominant power of the Northern
States of the Confederacy, against the resistance and struggle of the
Southern. It can then only be effected by the prostration of the
white race; and that would necessarily engender the bitterest feelings of hostility
between them and the North. But the reverse would be the case between the
blacks of the South and the people of the North. Owing
their emancipation to them, they would regard them as friends, guardians, and patrons,
and centre, accordingly, all their sympathy in them. The people of the
North would not fail to reciprocate and to favor them, instead of the
whites. Under the influence of such feelings, and impelled by
fanaticism and love of power, they would not stop at emancipation.
Another step would be taken—to raise them to a political and social equality
with their former owners, by giving them the right of voting and
holding public offices under the Federal Government. We see the first step
toward it in the bill already alluded to—to vest the free blacks and slaves
with the right to vote on the question of emancipation in this
District. But when once raised to an equality, they would become the fast
political associates of the North, acting and voting with them on all
questions, and by this political union between them, holding the white race at
the South in complete subjection. The blacks, and the profligate whites that
might unite with them, would become the principal recipients of federal
offices and patronage, and would, in consequence, be raised above the
whites of the South in the political and social scale. We would, in a
word, change conditions with them—a degradation greater than has ever yet
fallen to the lot of a free and enlightened people, and one from
which we could not escape, should emancipation take place (which it certainly
will if not prevented), but by fleeing the homes of ourselves and
ancestors, and by abandoning our country to our former slaves, to become the
permanent abode of disorder, anarchy, poverty, misery, and
wretchedness.
With such a prospect
before us, the gravest and most solemn question that ever claimed the
attention of a people is presented for your consideration: What is to
be done to prevent it? It is a question belonging to you to decide. All we propose
is, to give you our opinion.
We, then, are of the
opinion that the first and indispensable step, without which nothing can be
done, and with which every thing may be, is to be united among yourselves, on
this great and most vital question. The want of union and concert in
reference to it has brought the South, the Union, and our system of government
to their present perilous condition. Instead of placing it above all
others, it has been made subordinate, not only to mere questions of policy,
but to the preservation of party ties and ensuring of party
success. As high as we hold a due respect for these, we hold them subordinate
to that and other questions involving our safety and happiness. Until they are
so held by the South, the North will not believe that you are in earnest in
opposition to their encroachments, and they will continue to follow, one after
another, until the work of abolition is finished. To convince them
that you are, you must prove by your acts that you hold all other questions
subordinate to it. If you become united, and prove yourselves in earnest, the
North will be brought to a pause, and to a calculation of consequences;
and that may lead to a change of measures, and the adoption of a
course of policy that may quietly and peaceably terminate this long
conflict between the two sections. If it should not, nothing would remain for
you but to stand up immovably in defence of rights, involving your
all—your property, prosperity, equality, liberty, and safety.
As the assailed, you
would stand justified by all laws, human and divine, in repelling a blow so
dangerous, without looking to consequences, and to resort to all means
necessary for that purpose. Your assailants, and not you, would be responsible
for consequences.
Entertaining these
opinions, we earnestly entreat you to be
united, and for that purpose adopt all necessary measures. Beyond this, we
think it would not be proper to go at present.
We hope, if you
should unite with any thing like unanimity, it may of itself apply a
remedy to this deep-seated and dangerous disease; but, if such should not be
the case, the time will then have come for you to decide what course to adopt.
R. M. T. HUNTER,Virginia.
JAMES M. MASON, “
ARCHIBALD ATKINSON, “
THOMAS H. BAYLY, “
R. L. T. BEALE, “
HENRY BEDINGER, “
THOMAS S. BOCOCK, “
WILLIAM G. BROWN, “
R. K. MEADE, “
R. A. THOMPSON, “
J. R. J. DANIEL, North Carolina.
A. W. VENABLE, N. Carolina.
A. P. BUTLER, South Carolina.
J. C. CALHOUN, “
ARMISTEAD BURT, “
I. E. HOLMES, “
R. B. RHETT, “
R. F. SIMPSON, “
D. WALLACE, “
J. A. WOODWARD, “
H. V. JOHNSON, Georgia.
ALFRED IVERSON, “
HUGH A. HARALSON, “
DAVID L. YULEE, Florida.
S. U. DOWNS, Louisiana.
J. H. HARMANSON, “
EMILE LA SERE, “
I. E. MORSE, “
T. PILSBURY, Texas.
DAVID S. KAUFMAN, “
SOLON BORLAND, Arkansas.
J. K. SEBASTIAN, “
R. W. JOHNSON, “
HOPKINS L. TURNEY, Tennessee.
F. P. STANTON, “
D. R. ATCHISON, Missouri.
WILLIAM R. KING, Alabama.
B. FITZBATRICK, “
JOHN GAYLE, “
F. W. BOWDON, “
S. W. HARRIS, “
S. W. INGE, “
JEFFERSON DAVIS, Mississippi.
HENRY S. FOOTE, “
P. W. TOMPKINS, “
A. G. BROWN, “
W. S. FEATHERSTON, “
JACOB THOMPSON, “
P. S. Since this
address was prepared a motion to reconsider Mr. GOTT's resolutions has passed
the House of Representatives, and they are now the subject of further
proceedings.
_______________
1 Indiana and Illinois.
2 The case of Prigg vs. the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.
3 The case of Johnson vs. Tompkins and others.
4 Mr. Kennedy, of Hagerstown, Maryland.
5 Being nearly two on the part of the
South to one on the part of the North. But taking into consideration
that the population of the North is two thirds greater than the
South, the latter has furnished more than three times her due proportion of
volunteers.
|
Total number of volunteers
from the South—Regiments
|
33
|
|
Battalions
|
14
|
|
Companies
|
120
|
|
Total number of volunteers
from the South,
|
45,640
|
|
Total number of volunteers
from the North-Regiments
|
22
|
|
Battalions
|
2
|
|
Companies
|
12
|
|
Total number of volunteers
from the North,
|
23,084
|
6 Since reported to the House.
SOURCES: Richard
Crallé, Editor, The Works of John C.
Calhoun: Volume VI: Reports and Public Letters of John C. Calhoun, p.
290-313; James Stryker, Editor, The American Quarterly Register and Magazine, Volume 3, No. 1, p. 276-87; The American Review:
A Whig Journal, Devoted to Politics and Literature, New Series Vol. III.—Whole
Vol. IX, No. XV March 1849, p. 313 for the date of the address.
