[p1]
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 the African, which inhabit the southern section, and the acts of
aggression and encroachment to which it has led.
[p2]
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.
[p3]
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.
[p4]
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 representative 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.
[p5]
So satisfactory were these provisions, that the second, relating 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, in the most solemn manner, sacredly to observe them. How that faith
has been kept and that pledge redeemed we shall next proceed to show.
[p6]
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.
[p7]
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.
[p8]
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 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 meeting 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.*[Indiana and Illinois.]
[p9]
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 decisions*[The case of Prigg vs. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania] 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 this 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."
[p10]
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."
[p11]
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."
[p12]
The opinion of the other learned judges was not less emphatic as to the
importance to this provision and the unquestionable right of the South
under it. Judge Baldwin, in charging the jury, said:*[The case of Johnson vs.
Tompkins and others] "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."
[p13]
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 magistrates--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
life*[Mr. Kennedy, of Hagerstown, Maryland.] in making an attempt to
enforce his claim to a fugitive slave under this provision.
[p14]
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.
[p15]
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.
[p16]
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 what he cannot do directly, and it
may be added with equal truth, to aid, 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 ensure 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.
[p17]
We now return to the question of the admission of Missouri to 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 for 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.
[p18]
They claimed that Congress has no right to add 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 it 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 legislatures 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.
[p19]
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 as 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 fulfillment.
[p20]
For many years the subject of slavery in reference to the territories
ceased to agitate the country. Indications, however, connected with
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.
[p21]
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 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.
[p22]
The effects have been to widen the difference between the two sections, and
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.
[p23]
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 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 protection 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.
[p24]
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,*
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
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.
[p25]
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.
[p26]
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 are 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.
[p27]
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 or 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.*[Since
reported to the house.] It
passed by a vote of 107 to 80. That was followed by a bill introduced by
another member form Ohio, to take the votes of the inhabitants of this
District, on the question whether slavery within its limits should be
abolished.
[p28]
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 hindrance to the progress of
republican liberty among the nations of the earth. Therefore,
[p29]
"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.
[p30]
This resolution was passed over under the rules of the House without being
put to vote.
[p31]
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.
[p32]
We have now brought to 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.
[p33]
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.
[p34]
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.
[p35]
The question then is, Will the measures of aggression proposed in the House
be adopted?
[p36]
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.
[p37]
But, even if 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
still be 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
to the Constitution, she would emancipate our slaves, however opposed it
might be to its true intent.
[p38]
Thus, under every aspect, the result is certain, if aggression be not
promptly and decidedly met. How is it to be met, is for you to decide.
[p39]
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
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.
[p40]
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.
[p41]
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.
[p42]
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.
[p43]
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.
[p44]
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.
[p45]
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. | S.U. DOWNS, | Louisiana. |
JAMES H. MASON, | " | J.H. HARMANSON, | " |
ARCHIBALD ATKINSON, | " | EMILE LA SERE, | " |
THOMAS H. BAYLY, | " | I.E. MORSE, | " |
R.L.T. BEALE, | " | T. PILSBURY, | Texas. |
HENRY BEDINGER, | " | DAVID S. KAUFMAN, | " |
THOMAS S. BOCOCK, | " | SOLON BORLAND, | Arkansas. |
WILLIAM G. BROWN, | " | J.K. SEBASTIAN, | " |
R.K. MEADE, | " | R.W. JOHNSON, | " |
R.A. THOMPSON, | " | HOPKINS L. TURNEY, | Tennessee. |
J.R.J. DANIEL, | North Carolina. | F.P. STANTON, | " |
A.W. VENABLE, | " | D.R. ATCHISON, | Missouri. |
A.P. BUTLER, | South Carolina. | WILLIAM R. KING, | Alabama. |
J.C. CALHOUN, | " | B. FITZPATRICK, | " |
ARMISTEAD BURT, | " | JOHN GAYLE, | " |
I.E. HOLMES, | " | F.W. BOWDEN, | " |
R.B. RHETT, | " | S.W. HARRIS, | " |
R.F. SIMPSON, | " | S.W. INGE, | " |
D. WALLACE, | " | JEFFERSON DAVIS, | Mississippi. |
J.A. WOODWARD, | " | HENRY S. FOOTE, | " |
H.V. JOHNSON, | Georgia. | P.W. TOMKINS, | " |
ALFRED IVERSON, | " | A.G. BROWN, | " |
HUGH A HARALSON, | " | W.S. FEATHERSTON, | " |
DAVID L. YULEE, | Florida. | JACOB THOMPSON, | " |