clude it, you will justly take upon yourself all the charges of inconsistency; but confine it to the original slaveholding States, where you found it at the formation of your government, and you stand acquitted of all imputation.

tlemen, by their superor liberality in contributions to moral institutions, justly stand in the first rank, and hold the first place in the brightest page in the history of our country. But, turn over this page, and what do you behold? You behold them contributing to teach the doctrines of Christianity in every quarter of the globe. You behold them legislating to secure the ig norance and stupidity of their own slaves! You behold them, prescribing, by law, penalties against the man that dares teach a negro to read. Such is the statute law of the State of Virginia. [Mr. Bassett and Mr. Tyler said that there was no such law in Virginia.]

This is a subject upon which I have great feeling for the honor of my country. In a former debate upon the Illinois constitution, I mentioned that our enemies had drawn a picture of our country, as holding in one hand the Declaration of Independence, and with the other brandishing a whip over our affrighted slaves. I then made it my boast that we could cast back upon England the accusation-that she had committed the original sin of bringing slaves into our country. No, said Mr. T., I have mis-spoken myself; I I have since received, through the post-office, a ought to have said, such is the statute law of the letter post marked in South Carolina, and signed State of Georgia. Yes, while we hear of a "A native of England," desiring that, when I liberality which civilizes the savages of all had occasion to repeat my boast against England, countries, and carries the gospel alike to the I would also state that she had atoned for her Hottentot and the Hindoo, it has been reserved original sin, by establishing in her slave-colonies for the republican State of Georgia, not content a system of humane laws, meliorating their con- with the care of its overseers, to legislate to sedition, and providing for their safety, while cure the oppression and the ignorance of their America had committed the secondary sin of dis- slaves. The man who there teaches a negro to regarding their condition, and had even provided read, is liable to a criminal prosecution. The laws, by which it was not murder to kill a slave. dark, benighted beings of all creation profit by Sir, I felt the severity of the reproof; I felt for our liberality-save those of our own plantations. my country. I have inquired on the subject, Where is the missionary who possesses sufficient and I find such were formerly the laws in some hardihood to venture a residence to teach the of the slaveholding States; and that even now, slaves of a plantation? Here is the stain! Hero in the State of South Carolina, by law, the pen- is the stigma! which fastens upon the character alty of death is provided for stealing a slave, of our country; and which, in the appropriate while the murder of a slave is punished with a language of the gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. trivial fine. Such is the contrast and the relative Cobb.) all the waters of the ocean cannot wash value which is placed, in the opinion of a slave-out; which seas of blood can only take away. holding State, between the property of the master and the life of a slave.

Sir, gentlemen have undertaken to criminate, and to draw odious contrasts between different sections of our country-I shall not combat such arguments; I have made no pretense to exclusive morality on this subject, either for myself or my constituents; nor have I cast any imputations on others. On the contrary, I hold that mankind under like circumstances are alike, the world over. The vicious and unprincipled are confined to no district of country and it is for this portion of the community we are bound to legislate. When honorable gentlemen inform us we overrate the cruelty and the dangers of Slavery, and tell us that their slaves are happy, and contented, and would even contribute to their safety, they tell us but very little; they do not tell us, that, while their slaves are happy, the slaves of some depraved and cruel wretch in their neighborhood may not be stimulated to revenge, and thus involve the country in ruin. If we had to legislate only for such gentlemen as are now embraced within my view, a law against robbing the mail would be a disgrace upon the nation; and, as useless, I would tear it from the pages of your statute book; yet sad experience has taught us the necessity of such laws-and honor, justice, and policy teach us the wisdom of legislating to limit the extension of Slavery.

Sir, there is yet another, and an important point of view, in which this subject ought to be considered. We have been told by those who advocate the extension of Slavery into the Missouri, that any attempt to control this subject by legislation, is a violation of that faith and mutual confidence upon which our Union was formed, and our Constitution adopted. This argument might be considered plausible, if the restriction was attempted to be enforced against any of the slaveholding States, which had been a party in the adoption of the Constitution. But it can have no reference or application to a new district of country recently acquired, and never contemplated in the formation of government, and not embraced' in the mutual concessions and declared faith upon which the Constitution was adopted. The Constitution provides, that the Representatives of the several States to this House shall be according to their number, including three-fifths of the slaves in the respective States. This is an important benefit yielded to the slaveholding States, as one of the mutual sacrifices for the Union. On this subject, I consider the faith of the Union pledged, and I never would attempt coercive manumission in a slaveholding State.

But none of the causes which induced the sacrifice of this principle, and which now produce such an unequal representation on this floor, of In the zeal to draw sectional contrasts, we have the free population of the country, exist as bebeen told by one gentleman, that gentlemen from tween us and the newly-acquired Territory one district of country talk of their morality, across the Mississippi. That portion of country while those of another practice it. And the su- has no claims to such an unequal representation, perior liberality has been asserted of Southern unjust in its results upon the other States. Are gentlemen over those of the North, in all contribu- the numerous slaves in extensive countries, which tions to moral institutions, for bible and mission- we may acquire by purchase, and admit as States ary societies. Sir, I understand too well the pur- into the Union, at once to be represented on this suit of my purpose, to be decoyed and drawn off floor, under a clause of the Constitution, granted into the discussion of a collateral subject. I as a compromise and a benefit to the southern have no inclination to controvert these assertions States which had borne part in the Revolution? of comparative liberality. Although I have no Such an extension of that clause in the Constitu idea they are founded in fact, yet, because it bet- tion would be unjust in its operations, unequal in ter suits the object of my present argument, I its results, and a violation of its original intention. will, on this occasion, admit them to the fullest Abstract from the moral effects of Slavery, its extent. And what is the result? Southern gen- | political consequence in the representation under

this clause of the Constitution, demonstrate the importance of the proposed amendment.

Sir, I shall bow in silence to the will of the majority, on whichever side it shall be expressed: yet I confidently hope that inajority will be found on the side of an amendment, so replete with moral consequences, so pregnant with im portant political results.

their own State Constitution, and over which Congress had no superintending control, other than that expressly given in the fourth section of the same article, which read, "the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government." This end accomplished, the guardianship of the United States over the Constitutions of the several States was fulfilled; and all restrictions, limitations and Mr. SCOTT, of Missouri, said, he trusted conditions beyond this, was so much power unthat his conduct, during the whole of the time warrantably assumed. In illustration of this in which he had the honor of a seat in the House, position, he would read an extract from one of had convinced gentlemen of his disposition not the essays written by the late President Madison, to obtrude his sentiments on any other subjects contemporaneously with the Constitution of the than those on which the interest of his consti- United States, and from a very celebrated work: tuents, and of the Territory he represented, were In a confederacy founded on republican prinimmediately concerned. But when a question ciples, and composed of republican members, such as the amendments proposed by the gentle- the superintending government ought clearly to men from New York (Messrs. Tallmadge and possess authority to defend the system against Taylor), was presented for consideration, in- aristocratic or monarchical innovations. The volving constitutional principles to a vast more intimate the nature of such an Union may amount, pregnant with the future fate of the be, the greater interest have the members in the Territory, portending destruction to the liberties political institutions of each other, and the greater of that people, directly bearing on their rights of right to insist that the forms of government unproperty, their state rights, their all, he should der which the compact was entered into, should consider it as a dereliction of his duty, as retreat- be substantially maintained. But this authority ing from his post, nay, double criminality, did extends no further than to a guarantee of a rehe not raise his voice against their adoption. publican form of government, which supposes a After the many able and luminous views that pre-existing government of the form which is to had been taken of this subject, by the speaker of be guaranteed. As long, therefore, as the exthe House, and other honorable gentlemen, he isting republican forms are continued by the had not the vanity to suppose that any additional States, they are guaranteed by the Federal Conviews which he could offer or any new dress institution. Whenever the States may choose to which he could clothe those already advanced, would have the happy tendency of inducing any gentleman to change his vote. But, if he stood single on the question, and there was no man to help him, yet, while the laws of the land and the rules of the House guaranteed to him the privilege of speech, he would redeem his conscience from the imputation of having silently witnessed a violation of the Constitution of his country, and an infringement on the liberties of the people who had intrusted to his feeble abilities the advocation of their rights. He desired, at this early stage of his remarks, in the name of the citizens of Missouri Territory, whose rights on other subjects had been too long neglected and shamefully disregarded, to enter his solemn protest against the introduction, under the in sidious form of amendment, of any principle in this bill, the obvious tendency of which would be to sow the seeds of discord in, and perhaps eventually endanger the Union.

Mr. S. entertained the opinion, that, under the Constitution, Congress had not the power to impose this, or any other restriction, or to require of the people of Missouri their assent to this condition, as a pre-requisite to their admission into the Union. He contended this from the language of the Constitution itself, from the practice in the admission of new States under that instrument, and from the express terms of the treaty of cession. The short view he intended to take of those points would, he trusted, be satisfactory to all those who were not so anxious to usurp power as to sacrifice to its attainment the principles of our government, or who were not desirous of prostrating the rights and independence of a State to chimerical views of policy or expediency. The authority to admit new States into the Union was granted in the third section of the fourth article of the Constitution, which declared that "new States my be admitted by the Congress into the Union.' The only power given to the Congress by this section appeared to him to be, that of passing a law for the admission of the new State, leaving it in possession of all the rights, privileges, and immunities, enjoyed by the other States; the most valuable and prominent of which was that of forming and modifying

substitute other republican forms, they have a right to do so, and to claim the Federal guarantee for the latter. The only restriction imposed on them is, that they shall not exchange republican for anti-republican Constitutions; a restriction which, it is presumed, will hardly be considered as a grievance."

Mr. S. thought that those two clauses, when supported by such high authority, had they been the only ones in the Constitution which related to the powers of the general government over the States, and particularly at their formation and adoption into the Union, could not but be deemed satisfactory to a reasonable extent; but there were other provisions in the Constitution, to which he would refer, that beyond all doubt, to his mind, settled the question. One of those was the tenth article in the amendments, which said that "the powers not delegated to the United' States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people." He believed that, by common law, and coinmon usage, all grants giving certain defined and specific privileges, or powers, were to be so construed as that no others should be intended to be given but such as were particularly enumerated in the instruments themselves, or indispensably necessary to carry into effect those designated. In no part of the Constitution was the power proposed to be exercised, of imposing conditions on a new State, given, either in so many words, or by any justifiable or fair inference; nor in any portion of the Constitution was the right prohibited to the respective States, to regulate their own internal police, of admitting such citizens as they pleased, or of introducing any description of property, that they should consider as essential or necessary to their prosperity; and the framers of that instrument seem to have been zealous lest, by implication or by inference, powers might be assumed by the general govern inent over the states and people, other than those expressly given: hence they reserve in so many terms to the states, and the people, all powers not delegated to the federal governinent. The ninth article of the amendments to the Constitution still further illustrated the position he had taken; it read, that "the enumeration in the Co istitution

of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Mr. S. believed it to be a just rule of interpretation, that the enumeration of powers delegated to Congress weakened their authority in all cases not enumerated; and that beyond those powers enumerated they had none, except they were essentially necessary to carry into effect those that were given. The second section of the fourth article of the Constitution, which declared that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States," was satisfactory, to his judgment, that it was intended the citizens of each State, forming a part of one harmonious whole, should have, in all things, equal privileges; the necessary consequences of which was, that every man, in his own State, should have the same rights, privileges, and powers, that any other citizen of the United States had in his own State; otherwise discontent and murmurings would prevail against the general government who had deprived him of this equality.

For example, if the citizens of Pennsylvania, or Virginia, enjoyed the right, in their own State, to decide the question whether they would have Slavery or not, the citizens of Missouri, to give them the same privileges, must have the same right to decide whether they would or would not tolerate Slavery in their State; if it were otherwise, then the citizens of Pennsylvania and Virginia would have more rights, privileges, and powers in their respective States, than the citizens of Missouri would have in theirs. Mr. S. said he would make another quotation from the same work he had before been indebted to, which he believed had considerable bearing on this question. "The powers delegated by the proposed constitution, to the federal government, are few and defined; those which are to remain in the State Governments, are numerous and indefinite; the former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce, with which last the powers of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which in the ordinary course of affairs concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." The applicability of this doctrine to the question under consideration was so obvious, that he would not detain the House to give examples, but leave it for gentlemen to make the application. He would, however, make one other reference to the Constitution, before he proceeded to speak of the practice under it; in the second section of that instrument it was provided, that representatives, and direct taxes, shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, threefifths of all other persons." This provision was not restricted to the States then formed, and about to adopt the Constitution; but to all those States which might be included within this Union, clearly contemplating the admission of new States thereafter, and providing, that to them, also, should this principle of representation and taxation equally apply. Nor could he subscribe to the construction, that as this part of the Constitution was matter of compromise, it was to be limited in its application to the original States only, and not to be extended to all those States that might after its adoption become members of the Federal Union; and a practical exposition had been made by Congress of this part of the Constitution, in the admission of Kentucky, Louisiana,

and Mississippi States, all of whom were slaveholding States, and to each of them this principle had been extended.

Mr. S. believed, that the practice under the Constitution had been different from that now contended for by gentlemen; he was unapprised of any similar provision having ever been made, or attempted to be made, in relation to any other new State heretofore admitted. The argument drawn from the Statesformed out of the Territory northwest of the river Ohio, he did not consider as analogous; that restriction, if any, was imposed in pursuance of a compact, and only, so far as Congress could do, carried into effect the disposition of Virginia in reference to a part of her own original Territory, and was, in every respect, more just, because that provision was made and published to the world at a time when but few, if any, settlements were formed within that tract of country; and the children of those people of color belonging to the inhabitants then there have been, and still were, held in bondage, and were not free at a given age, as was contemplated by the amendment under consideration, nor did he doubt but that it was competent for any of those States admitted in pursuance of the ordinance of '87, to call a convention, and so to alter their constitution as to allow the introduction of Slaves, if they thought proper to do so. To those gentlemen who had in their argument, in support of the amendments, adverted to the instance where Congress had, by the law authorizing the people of Louisiana to form a constitution and State government, exercised the power of imposing the terms and conditions on which they should be permitted to do so, he would recommend a careful examination and comparison of those terms with the Constitution of the United States, when, he doubted not, they would be convinced that these restrictions were only such as were in express and positive language defined in the latter instrument, and would have been equally binding on the people of Louisiana had they not been enumerated in the law giving them authority to form a constitution for themselves.

Mr. S. said, he considered the contemplated conditions and restrictions, contained in the proposed amendments, to be unconstitutional and unwarrantable, from the provisions of the treaty of cession, by the third article of which it was stipulated, that "the inhabitants of the ceded Territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States, and admitted, as soon as possible, according to the principles of the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States, and, in the mean time, they shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoy. ment of their liberty, property, and the religion which they profess."

This treaty having been made by the competent authority of government, ratified by the Senate, and emphatically sanctioned by Congress in the acts making appropriations to carry it into effect, became a part of the supreme law of the land, and its bearings on the rights of the people had received a practical exposition by the admission of the State of Louisiana, part of the same Territory, and acquired by the same treaty of cession, into the Union. It was in vain for gentlemen to tell him that, by the terms of the treaty of cession, the United States were not bound to admit any part of the ceded Territory into the Union as a State; the evidence of the obligation Congress considered they were under, to adopt States formed out of that Territory, is clearly deducible from the fact, that they had done so in the instance of Louisiana. But, had no State been admitted, formed of a part of the Territory acquired by that treaty, the obligation

member from New-York (Mr. Taylor), he was compelled to suspect that they had their influence upon him. That gentleman has told us, that if ever he left his present residence, it would be for Illinois or Missouri; at all events, he wished to send out his brothers and his sons. Mr. Scott begged that gentleman to relieve him from the awful apprehension excited by the prospect of this accession of population. He hoped the House would excuse him while he stated, that he did not desire that gentleman, his sons, or his brothers, in that land of brave, noble, and independent freemen. The member says that the latitude is too far north to admit of Slavery there. Would the gentleman cast his eye on the map before him, he would there see, that a part of Kentucky, Virginia, and Maryland, were as far north as the northern boundary of the proposed State of Missouri. Mr. Scott would thank the gentleman if he would condescend to tell him what precise line of latitude suited his conscience, his humanity, or his political views, on this subject. Could that member be serious, when he made the parallel of latitude the measure of his good will to those unfortunate blacks? Or was he trying how far he could go in fallacious argument and absurdity, without creating one blush even on his own cheek, for inconsistency? What, starve the negroes out, pen them up in the swamps and morasses, confine them to southern latitudes, to long, scorching days of labor and fatigue, until the race becomes extinct, that the fair land of Missouri may be tenanted by that gentleman, his brothers, and sous? He expected from the majority of the House a more liberal policy, and better evidence that they really were actuated by humane motives.

Но

they suppose that the southern States would sub mit with patience to a measure the effect of which would be to exclude them from all enjoyment of the vast region purchased by the United States beyond the Mississippi, and which belonged equally to them as to the northern States? ventured to assure them that they would not. The people of the slaveholding States, as they are called, know their rights, and will insist upon the enjoyment of them. He should not now attempt to go over ground already occupied by others, with much more ability, and attempt to show that, by the treaty with France, the people of that Territory were secured in the enjoyment of the property which they held in their slaves. That the proposed amendment was an infraction of this treaty, had been moet clearly shown. Nor would he attempt to rescue from slander the character of the people of the southern States, in their conduct towards, and treatment of, their black population. That had also been done with a degree of force and eloquence, to which he could pretend no claim, by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Barbour), and the honorable speaker. He was, however, clearly of opinion that Congress possessed no power under the Constitution to adopt the principle proposed in the amendment. He called upon the advocates of it to point out, and lay their finger upon that clause of the Constitution of the United States, which gives to this body the right to legislate upon the subject. Could they show in what clause or sec tion this right was expressly given, or from which it could be inferred? Unless this authority could be shown, Congress would be assuming a power, if the amendment prevailed, not delegated to Mr. S. said, he would trouble the House no is the end and tendency of the measure proposed? them, and most dangerous in its exercise. What longer; he thanked them for the attention and It is to impose on the State of Missouri conditions indulgence already bestowed; but he desired to not imposed upon any other State. It is to de apprise gentlemen, before he sat down, that they prive her of one branch of sovereignty not sur were sowing the seeds of discord in this Union, rendered by any other State in the Union, not by attempting to admit states with unequal privi- even those beyond the Ohio; for all of them had leges and unequal rights; that they were signing, legislated upon this subject; all of them had desealing, and delivering their own death-warrant; cided for themselves whether Slavery should be that the weapon they were so unjustly wielding tolerated, at the time they framed their several against the people of Missouri, was a two-edged constitutions. He would not now discuss the sword. From the cumulative nature of power, propriety of admitting Slavery. It is not now & the day might come when the general govern-question whether it is politic or impolitic to tole ment might, in turn, undertake to dictate to them on questions of internal policy; Missouri, now weak and feeble, whose fate and murmurs would excite but little alarm or sensibility, might become an easy victim to motives of policy, party zeal, or mistaken ideas of power; but other times and other men would succeed; a future Congress might come, who, under the sanctified forms of constitutional power, would dictate to them odious conditions; nay, inflict on their internal independence a wound more deep and dreadful than even this to Missouri. The House had seen the force of precedent, in the mistaken application of the conditions imposed on the people of Louisiana anterior to their admission into the Union. And, whatever might be the ultimate determination of the House, Mr. S. considered this question big with the fate of Cæsar and of Rome.

Mr. COBB, of Georgia, observed that he did not rise for the purpose of detaining the attention of the House for any length of time. He was too sensible of the importance of each moment which yet remained of the session to obtrude many remarks upon their patience. But, upon a measure involving the important consequences that this did, he felt it to be an imperious duty to express his sentiments, and to enter his most solemn protest against the principle proposed for adoption by the amendment. tlemen aware of what they were about to do? Did they foresee no evil consequences likely to result out of the measure if adopted? Could

Were gen

rate Slavery in the United States, or in a particu lar State. It was a discussion into which he would not permit himself to be dragged. Admit. however, its moral impropriety: yet there was a vast difference between moral impropriety and political sovereignty. The people of New York or Pennsylvania may deem it highly immoral and politically improper to permit Slavery, but yet they possess the sovereign right and power to permit it, if they choose. They can to-morrow if they were so disposed. It is a branch of sove so alter their constitutions and laws as to admit it, reignty which the old Thirteen States never sur render in the adoption of the Federal Constitu tion. Now, the bill proposes that the new State shall be admitted upon an equal footing with the other states of the Union. It is in this way only that she can be admitted under the Constitution These words can have no other meaning than that she shall be required to surrender no more of her rights of sovereignty than the other States, into a union with which she is about to be admitted, have surrendered. But if the proposed amendment is adopted, will not this new State be shorn of one branch of her sovereignty, one right, which the other States may and have exercised, (whether properly or not, is immaterial,) and de now exercise whenever they think fit?

Mr. C. observed, that he did conceive the principle involved in the amendment pregnant with danger. believed the people of the region of cory It was one, he repeated, to which he