4
|
of this section prohibits the importation or bringing into the Territory, from any port or place within the limits of the United States, any slaves. The second clause prohibits the importation or bringing into the Territory, from any port or place within the limits of the United States, any slaves which shall have been imported since the 1st of May, 1798, into any port or place within the United States, or which may hereafter be so imported. The third clause prohibits the introduction of slaves into the Territory, except by a citizen removing into the Territory for actual settlement, and being, at the time of removal, the bona fide owner of the slaves. This section was an unmistakable restriction to the introduction of slavery into that Territory. It had respect to existing relations, and did not interfere with citizens in the Territory bona fide owning slaves, and citizens removing therein bona fide owning slaves. The treaty stipulations with France compelled Congress to respect the right of property of the citizens of the Territory; and as slaves existed there by the laws of France, to that extent slavery was permitted there by Congress, and in other respects it was discouraged. Congress could not, prior to the year 1808, prohibit the migration or importation of such persons as any of the States, existing at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, should think proper to admit; but, by a reference to the acts above stated, it will be seen that it prohibited, the traffic in slaves, foreign and domestic, wherever it constitutionally could, thus stigmatizing slavery as an evil to be discouraged and prohibited. On the 2d day of March, 1807, Congress passed the act to prohibit the foreign slave trade as to all the States, after the year 1808, the first moment they could so prohibit it. April 20, 1818, Congress amended this law, making its provisions more effectual; and in 1819, a more stringent law was passed. On the 15th of March, 1820, the last act on the subject of the slave trade was passed, making it piracy, and punishing a conviction of being engaged in it with death. These acts, severally and jointly, show that the early fathers of the Republic regarded slavery as an evil and a crime, and, acting upon that conviction, they were eager to punish it as a crime, where they supposed they had a right to do so. The advocates of slavery are not satisfied with the opinions and practices of the fathers; and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Curry] adopts the saying,
Suppose we accept this philosophy, and meet the question on its merits, untrammelled by the opinions and teachings of the fathers; if they were wrong in opinion or action, we are not bound to follow them. They were honest men, but they may have made mistakes. From our stand-point, it would seem to me that it would have been better if a provision had been inserted in the Constitution for the gradual abolition of slavery in all the States; and I think, had |
the framers of the Constitution foreseen what we now see, they would have so provided. The words of Pitt, on the East India bill, quoted approvingly by the gentleman from Alabama, were wise:
The spread and increase of slavery in this country, against the wish and against the expectation of the early fathers of the Republic, verify the truth of the remark. Now, Mr. Chairman, to the question, were our fathers wrong, has the sentiment of Christendom been wrong, and is the Republican party wrong, in regarding slavery as an evil to be deplored and a crime to be prohibited? I cannot take time to define slavery, except that it reduces persons to chattels to all intents, purposes, and constructions whatever; ignores their rights to family, wife, or children, except for the interest of others, and does not recognise the marriage relation among slaves. There are no laws in slave States regulating or legalizing such relation among slaves. I understood the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. SimmsJ to say, in the debate on the polygamy bill, he did not admit the legality of any such, relation among colored people. This is, necessarily, the law of chattel slavery; for the legalization of that relation interferes with the property character of slaves, obstructs their unlimited transfer and sale, and concedes to the slave rights inconsistent with the rights of the master. Now, to undertake to prove that such an entire disregard, upon any pretext, of the rights of any class in society is right, is like arguing that two and two are four, or undertaking to demonstrate a self-evident proposition. I understood the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Lamar] to admit, in his learned argument in defence of slavery, that the enslavement of Anglo-Saxons would be wrong, for they are entitled to freedom because they are capable of governing themselves. But Africans are incapable of self government, and therefore a superior race may rightfully enslave them. It is not within the range of what I propose to say to reply to this diabolism. My friend, Mr. Lovejoy, made some remarks upon that, which are worthy of consideration. But I would like to ask the learned gentleman a question upon his governmental philosophy. It is an admitted fact that there is in the slave States "a visible admixture" of Anglo-Saxon with African blood, and quite likely there is as much Anglo-Saxon as African blood enslaved there. What must be the proportion of admixture to make slavery right ? The advocates of slavery discard theories, speculations, and abstractions; they prefer actual results. I am glad of an opportunity to test slavery by the standard which its advocates set up. Let slavery and freedom be judged by their fruits. I will institute a comparison between freedom and slavery from statistics—from official documents—about which there is no dispute. The statistics which I shall present |
|
