Chapter X: Introduction (10)

Mr. REID:--I think it is entirely too late to talk about saving time. How long will it take to have the names of dissenting delegates called? For one, I desire to exercise my rights under the authority of the State I represent. I will not consent to waive them. When the vote of my State is cast, I wish to have the record show who is responsible for it.

The question was taken on the resolution offered by Mr.
CHASE, and it was rejected, and the additional rule proposed
by Mr. DENT was adopted.

Mr. COALTER:--I offer the following, which I shall move as an amendment to the report. I ask that it be laid on the table, and printed:

"The term of office of all Presidents and Vice-Presidents of
the United States, hereafter elected, shall be six years;
and any person once elected to either of said offices, shall
ever after be ineligible to the same office."

The above motion to lay on the table and print was agreed to.

Mr. BRONSON:--I also have an amendment, of which I ask to have the same disposition made. It is as follows:

"Congress shall have no power to legislate in respect to
persons held to service or labor in any case, except to
provide for the rendition of fugitives from such service or
labor, and to suppress the foreign slave trade; and the
existing _status_ or condition of all the Territories of the
United States, in respect to persons held to service or
labor, shall remain unchanged during their territorial
condition; and whenever any Territory, with suitable
boundaries, shall contain the population requisite for a
representative in Congress, according to the then federal
ratio of representation, it shall be entitled to admission
into the Union on an equal footing with the original States,
with or without persons held to service or labor, as the
Constitution of such new State may prescribe."

Mr. BRONSON'S motion was agreed to.

Mr GUTHRIE:--I call for the order of the day.

The PRESIDENT:--The order of the day is called for, and the gentleman from New York has the floor.

Mr. SMITH:--At the adjournment yesterday, I had proceeded to state two or three grounds upon which I think the proposals of amendment to the Constitution reported by the majority of the committee would be unacceptable to the North, and I had also stated some special objections to action in this way and at the present time.

The next consideration to which I would invite attention is this: Is it necessary or wise for the Conference, composed as it is of friends of the Union, or is it _expedient_ thus to encounter the settled sentiments and convictions of the people of so large a section of the country? It is not necessary, for various reasons. This territorial question is, after all, a question to be looked at in a prospective view. Why is it necessary to disturb the Constitution by inserting such a provision as you propose? Why is it necessary for gentlemen from the South to have it in, in order to enable them to stand with their people at home?

Slavery is now in New Mexico. That must be acknowledged as a fact. The South think it rightfully there--the North believe it is there wrongfully. But its existence in the territories is a fact nevertheless. President LINCOLN cannot help it if he would. The Supreme Court will affirm its rightful existence there, whenever the question comes before that body. That Court cannot be changed before these territories are admitted as States, if the disposition exists to change it. You claim that the question is already decided. How, then, can it be important to you to press the adoption of these sections as a part of the Constitution? My judgment is, that it is best to leave this subject alone--that that is the true way to save the Union.

Gentlemen of the South, remember that if you must stand at home with your people, so also must we. There is a _North_ as well as a _South_!--a northern people as well as southern people. You press us hard on these subjects. But can men who are rational ask us to abandon our own people, to go counter to their convictions and sentiments? We cannot do it! You would not respect us if we did! I am very sure that if this Conference is to attain any beneficial result, it must abandon all idea of coercion or intimidation as applied to the friends of the Union.

It is said we are contending for a party platform--that we are letting party stand between us and the Union. I could trample parties and platforms under foot to preserve the Union, but I cannot understand how honest men can abandon principles because a party has adopted them into its platform. Do not tell us that by adhering to the Union and the Constitution, we are simply adhering to a party platform. Our principles are at least as dear to us, as yours are to you; you must not expect us to sacrifice them either to promote our own material interests or to promote yours.

Let us then sink the question of slavery in the Territories. Let the courts take care of it if need be, or let it be dealt with when it properly comes up. "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." In that direction lays the path of peace.

But perhaps it may be suggested that such a course would really leave no plan to be adopted. Perhaps so. Is it, then, not true that we are having all this trouble over a contingency that may or may not arise? That the Constitution is sufficient for all purposes but this, you aver; and yet you say in the same breath that the Court has settled this question entirely and finally in your favor. Why not be satisfied, then, with the settlement? Can you make it more of a finality in the way you propose? No, gentlemen; believe me when I tell you that the true remedy does not consist in endeavoring to humiliate the people of one section for the benefit of another. Remember we are dealing with the _American_ people; I would not throw the Constitution into the vortex of disunion that is opening before us; I would preserve it rather as a rock on which we can all safely stand. Do not throw away the compass by which alone we can safely be guided!

If I were to suggest a suitable remedy, what I think a wise plan, it would be the one adopted on a similar occasion, when one of the States set itself up in opposition to the General Government, with such very beneficial results; and that would be, to have the Government appeal to the people for support--to throw itself into the arms of the people. The result then has become historical. It is remembered with pride and pleasure by all. I would have a similar course pursued now. The result would be equally grand, equally gratifying. It would rally every patriot, every friend of the Union from every section, to its support. You, gentlemen of the South, now friends of the Union, still give it the strength of your support, the favor of your countenance, and you shall be supported and sustained as you can be in no other way. You shall have the support of the power of the Government and of every friend of the Union in the country.

You remember how those patriotic statesmen, CLAY and WEBSTER--differing from the Executive, opposing his election with all the strength of their gigantic intellects--when the authority of the Government was questioned, and South Carolina, under the lead of Mr. CALHOUN, undertook to set herself up in opposition to it--how they waived all former differences, and instead of encouraging secession by their delay and timidity, without asking for new guarantees or for amendments of the Constitution, came voluntarily and earnestly to the support of the Executive and the administration, because the Executive was right, and was the chosen instrument of the people to preserve the integrity of the Union.

Mr. BARRINGER:--If the gentleman will excuse me, I will state that the course of the Executive against South Carolina was universally acquiesced in except in that State. And yet the opinion that President JACKSON far exceeded his powers, was equally unanimous. That precedent has been greatly misinterpreted.

Mr. SMITH:--I thank the gentleman from North Carolina. He entertains his opinions, I do mine, as to what then saved the Union. I should not probably be able to make him think with me; but I feel sure that the idea prevails quite extensively, that South Carolina returned to the path of duty then, because the power of the Government was wielded by an honest and energetic Executive. She came to the conclusion that any other course would probably be attended with danger.

Our present differences had no very remote origin. They belong to our own generation, and we ought to be compelled to deal with them. I think the so-called compromise of 1850 was the cause of all our troubles--that instead of saving the country it brought it into greater danger than it ever was before.

Mr. BARRINGER:--I wish to make a suggestion on that point.

Mr. SMITH:--I hope the gentleman will not forget that he will have a full opportunity to answer me. I am nearly through, and generally no good comes of interruptions. They only consume time.

I was about to say, that I do not propose to go into the question of who was to blame for that repeal. I agree with gentlemen from the South, that there is no profit now in discussing the origin of our troubles--in inquiring who set the house on fire before we put on the water.

Mr. CLAY:--Does the gentleman do justice to Mr. CLAY, when at one moment he says that Mr. CLAY held up the arms of the administration, strengthened the Executive, and aided the Government in putting down secession, and in the next, states that the compromise of 1850 was the cause of all our troubles, when it is well known that Mr. CLAY strongly favored that compromise?

Mr. SMITH:--When I speak of the unhappy effect of the compromise measures of 1850, I ascribe no wrong motives to Mr. CLAY or any one else. If he approved that compromise, I have no doubt he did it in the full belief that it would be beneficial to the country. Experience has shown that he was mistaken. Saying this is doing no injustice to Mr. CLAY. I spoke only of effects. I spoke of the zeal and the energy with which the patriots and eminent statesmen of all parties of this country have been accustomed to come forward and sustain the administration when any necessity existed for doing so. Now let this Conference--let all true friends of the Union everywhere, with one voice, without attempting to place any section or any man in a false or disagreeable position, unite in one determined effort in behalf of the Union, and in an attempt to bring the rash and dangerous men who would seek the destruction of the Government back to a sense of duty. Let us address the country, let us show that we are devoted to the Union, far beyond any considerations of party or self; let us invoke the aid of all true and patriotic men; let us ask them to lay aside for the time all other considerations, and give themselves for the present to the country! The spirit of the old time is yet alive. We can call it out in more than its old strength and vigor, and it will save the country. Our private interests may suffer, but the great interests of the Union will be strengthened and preserved, and the Constitution, which has been our pride and strength, will not be dragged down into the great whirlpool of disunion. I appeal to the venerable and able men around me, who bear historic names--who have been themselves long connected with the Union and its Government, to join us in our struggle to save the Constitution.

The views I have expressed may be chimerical. I have advanced them with no little diffidence, but I felt called upon to state them in the discharge of a duty I owe to a people who love and will make great sacrifices to save the Constitution and the Union.

A majority vote, one way or the other here, would be of little consequence. It would carry no weight with it. But if the members of this Conference would all unite in such an appeal to the country, the response would be instantaneous and effective. The heart of the country is loyal; the heart of the South is loyal, I believe. We have abundant evidence that it is not too late to rely upon the Union men in Missouri and Tennessee!

Mr. CARRUTHERS:--The vote of Tennessee is entirely misunderstood.

Mr. SMITH:--Perhaps so. I have no acquaintance with the people of Tennessee. But I will not occupy the time of the Conference farther. I have spoken plainly, but I have spoken what I believe to be the honest convictions of a large majority of the people of this Union. Once more I say, let us not destroy the Constitution!

Mr. CLEVELAND:--I have not got up to make a speech. We have had too much speech-making here. It may be very well for gentlemen to get up and make long arguments and eloquent appeals, and show their abilities and powers, but it all does no sort of good--nobody is benefited, and no opinions are changed. I shall take no such course. I want to see whether this little handful of men who meet every day in this hall, cannot get together and fix up this matter which has been so much talked about. Let us pay no attention to the great men or the politicians. They have interests of their own. Some of them have interests which are superior to those of their country.

In the common affairs of life there are always a great many differences of opinion. Some treat these differences one way--some another. Foolish men go to law, and always come out worse off than when they started. Sensible men get together, and talk matters over; one gives up a little, the other gives up a little, and finally they get together. Now, friends, that is just what I want to see done here.

We are all friends--friends of the Union and of each other. Nobody wants to give up the Union, or hurt Mr. LINCOLN. The South has got frightened--not exactly frightened, but she thinks the Republicans, since they have got the power, are going to trample upon her rights. She wants the North to agree not to do so. Now I should like to know what objection there was to that? Who is afraid to do that? If we could go to work at this thing like sensible men, we could settle the whole matter in two hours.

Now about these propositions. I do not see any thing alarming in them. I have not set to work to pick flaws in them. Leave that to the lawyers. I don't care much about them, nor does the North care about them. If the South will take them and be satisfied--if they will stop this clamor about slavery and slavery extension, I think she had better have them. For one, I am sick of the whole subject.

Let us then go about the work like sensible men; let us stop making long speeches and picking flaws in each other. It is a matter of business, and pretty important business. Let us consider it as such, and from this moment let us throw aside all feeling, and set about coming to some understanding. We can do it to-day as well as next week. I do not know that these propositions are the best that can be made; but if they are not, let us talk the matter over like good Union men, and see what is best. When we can find that out, let us agree. If we stay here and make speeches until doomsday, we shall be no better off. I am for action, and coming to an immediate decision.

Mr. COALTER:--If the vote of Missouri is to be taken as an evidence of her devotion to the Union, it must also be understood with this qualification: Her interests and her sympathies unite her closely with the South. She feels, in common with others, her share of anxiety for the future. She is devoted to the Union, and at the same time she insists that it is fair and right that these guarantees should be given.

It has been distinctly avowed on this floor that the people of certain sections of the North _abhor_ slavery. Ought we not to be distrustful when a party entertaining such sentiments comes into supreme power? If Massachusetts abhors _slavery_, how long will it be before she will abhor _slaveholders?_

Ignorance is the source of all our difficulties. The people of the North know little of the condition of the negro in a state of slavery. We know that the four millions of blacks in the South are better off in all respects than any similar number of laborers anywhere.

But I rise only to correct a false impression in regard to Missouri. I have only besides to express my full conviction that if the North will not give us these guarantees, we are henceforth a divided people.

Mr. GOODRICH:--Mr. President, the object of this Convention, assembled on the call or invitation of Virginia, is, as set forth in the preamble and resolutions of her General Assembly,

"To restore the Union and Constitution in the spirit in
which they were established by the fathers of the Republic;"
or, as otherwise expressed, "to adjust the present unhappy
controversies in the spirit in which the Constitution was
originally made, and consistently with its principles."

This agrees, in substance, with the purpose of the Republican party, which, in the words of the Philadelphia platform, is declared to be that of "restoring the action of the Federal Government to the principles of WASHINGTON and JEFFERSON."

Virginia announces to the other States that she "is desirous of employing every reasonable means," and is "willing to unite" with them "in an earnest effort" for the accomplishment of this common end and object of that State and the Republican party; and she is moved to make this her "final effort," by "the deliberate opinion of her General Assembly, that unless the unhappy controversy which now divides the States of this Confederacy shall be satisfactorily adjusted, a permanent dissolution of the Union is inevitable," and by a desire to "avert so dire a calamity."

Massachusetts, equally willing to unite with the other States in an earnest effort to further the same end, accepted the invitation of Virginia, and sent Commissioners here to represent her.

The honorable Chairman (Mr. GUTHRIE) of the committee to report a plan of adjustment, in his opening speech, advocated with earnestness and eloquence a restoration of the Constitution to the principles of the fathers. The distinguished gentleman (Mr. RIVES) from Virginia demands a "restoration of the Constitution to the landmarks of our fathers," and his colleague (Mr. SEDDON) urges a return to the "policy of our fathers in 1787."

This assumes that we have departed from the principles and landmarks of our fathers, and from the policy of 1787. The call of the Convention assumes this; the platform of the Republican party assumes it, and the gentlemen whose remarks I have quoted assume it, and it is true.

The particular object of a return to the principles and landmarks of the policy of 1787, as stated in the preamble and resolutions of the General Assembly of Virginia, is, "to afford to the people of the slaveholding States adequate guarantees for the security of their rights." This implies that such a return will afford these adequate guarantees. I agree that it will; and I am ready, and Massachusetts is ready, to adjust this unhappy controversy, and to give the guarantees demanded in exactly this way.

Stated in these general terms, there is a perfect agreement between us. But we find a wide difference when we go one step farther, and learn precisely what Virginia claims would be a restoration of the Constitution to the principles of the fathers, and a return to the policy of 1787. This she has told us in one of the resolutions sent out with the call for this Convention. That resolution is as follows:

"_Resolved_, That in the opinion of the General Assembly of
Virginia, the propositions embraced in the resolutions
presented to the Senate of the United States by Hon. JOHN J.
CRITTENDEN, so modified as that the first article proposed
as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States
shall apply to all the territory of the United States, now
held or hereafter acquired south of latitude 36° 30´, and
provide that slavery of the African race shall be
effectually protected as property therein during the
continuance of the territorial government, and the fourth
article shall secure to the owners of slaves the right of
transit with their slaves between and through the
non-slaveholding States and territories, constitute the
basis of such an adjustment of the unhappy controversy which
now divides the States of this Confederacy, as would be
accepted by the people of this Commonwealth."

It was in reference to these propositions that the gentleman (Mr. SEDDON) from Virginia, has asked us the question, "Are we not entitled to these added guarantees according to the spirit of the compact of our fathers?"

The true answer to this question is the pivot on which this whole controversy must turn. If the slave States are not entitled to these added guarantees, "according to the spirit of the compact of our fathers," then Virginia, as I understand her Commissioners, and the resolutions of her General Assembly, does not claim them. She stands upon her rights according to that compact. And all such rights Massachusetts is ready to accord to her, fairly and fully.

By the spirit of the compact of our fathers is meant, the Constitution as they understood it, and as the people of that day understood it. And this is what is meant by the "landmarks of the fathers." All admit that the Federal Government should be administered now, as it was administered by its framers. This is what gentlemen from the slave States, in giving utterance to their intense devotion to the Union, say.

Then, what is the Constitution, as understood by those who framed it? What does it mean when interpreted by the light of the policy of 1787? and what is the spirit of the compact which they made? This is the question we are called to consider. In my remarks I do not mean to wander from it.

So far as the Constitution touches the question out of which the present unhappy controversy has arisen, I say it means this: That slavery, as it existed or might exist within the limits of the original States, should not be interfered with to the injury of the lawful rights of slaveholders under State authority; on the contrary, that it should have the right of recaption, and a qualified protection; but that outside of those limits, otherwise than in this right of recaption, it should never exist, neither in the territories nor in the new States.

And let me say here, that when I speak of the original States, I mean the territory of those States as then bounded. Alabama and Mississippi belonged to Georgia, Tennessee belonged to North Carolina, Kentucky belonged to Virginia, Vermont belonged to New York, and Maine belonged to Massachusetts, and were parts of the thirteen original States, at the time the Constitution was adopted. When, therefore, I speak of territory outside the original States, I do not refer to territory within any of the States named.

Mr. BOUTWELL:--I trust my colleague does not claim to speak for Massachusetts, when he denies the right of any State of this Union to establish and maintain slavery within its jurisdiction, or to prohibit it altogether, according to its discretion. This right was reserved to the States; and States in this Union, whether original or new, stand on a footing of perfect equality.

Mr. GOODRICH:--I certainly do not claim to speak for Massachusetts, though I believe the opinion of the great majority of her people agrees with my own on this subject. However, what I claim is, that Ohio and the other States of the northwestern territory have no constitutional power to legalize slavery within their limits; that they were admitted into the Union without any such power, and that every other new State formed from territory outside the limits of the original States, according to the "spirit of the compact of our fathers," should have been admitted without that power, or the right to acquire it. This I will now proceed to show.

On the first day of March, 1784, the northwest territory, constituting the present States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, was ceded by Virginia to the United States. The jurisdiction of the United States was then exclusive and paramount, or soon became so--such other States as had claimed any right of jurisdiction having ceded it. The cession of Virginia was made by THOMAS JEFFERSON, SAMUEL HARDY, ARTHUR LEE, and JAMES MONROE, who were delegates in Congress from that State, and had been appointed Commissioners for this purpose. On the same day the cession was made, Mr. JEFFERSON, in behalf of a committee, reported a plan for temporary governments in the United States territory then and afterwards to be ceded, and for forming therein permanent governments.

That plan provided, "that so much of the territory ceded, or to be ceded, by individual States to the United States, shall be divided into distinct States." It is obvious that this plan contemplated the possession of territory in no other way than by cession from the States. It was expected that Georgia and North Carolina would cede their western lands, now the States of Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee, as they did some years later; and Mr. JEFFERSON'S plan was intended to embrace those lands or territories to be ceded. Consequently, the following provisions, which were part of the plan reported, were intended by him to apply to Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee, viz.:

"After the year 1800 of the Christian era, there shall be
neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said
States, otherwise that in the punishment of crimes."

Here the States were evidently those to be formed in United States territory. And farther on in the plan it is stated,

"That the preceding articles shall be formed into a charter
of compact, and shall stand as fundamental Constitutions
between the thirteen original States, and each of the
several States now newly described, unalterable ... but by
the joint consent of the United States in Congress
assembled, and of the particular State within which such
alteration is proposed to be made."

This was a proposition to exclude slavery forever after 1800, not only from the territories which had been, and might afterwards be, ceded, but from the States to be formed in them, and to make it a fundamental Constitution between the original States and each new State. It excited a short discussion, and was postponed from time to time to the 19th of April, when Mr. SPEIGHT, of North Carolina, moved to strike it out. The motion was seconded by Mr. REED, of South Carolina. The vote by States, on the motion to strike out, was:

YEAS.--Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina--3.

NAYS.--New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
Connecticut, New York, and Pennsylvania--6.

This was under the Confederation articles, which provided that the vote on all questions should be taken by States, each State casting one vote; that no proposition could be adopted without the vote of seven States in favor of it, and that the vote of no State could be counted unless two members, at least, were present. As there were but six States in favor of the proposition to prohibit slavery after 1800, it was stricken out.

There was but one member present from New Jersey, and the vote of that State was not counted. The member present voted for Mr. JEFFERSON'S proposition. Another vote from that State would have made the required number, and carried the measure.

In North Carolina, WILLIAMSON voted for prohibition, and SPEIGHT against it. One more vote from that State would have made seven States for the proposition, and it would have been carried.

JEFFERSON voted for his own proposition to prohibit; and if one of the other two members present from Virginia had voted with him, that, too, would have made the required number of seven States.

The vote North and South, by members, was in favor of prohibition: North, 14; South, 2--total, 16. Against prohibition, South, 7.

The majority was more than two-thirds; enough to carry it over an executive veto under the present Constitution, and yet it was defeated. And this vote was given in favor of absolute and unconditional prohibition, and that alone, without the right of reclaiming fugitive slaves, or any proposition, or any expectation to confer it. Under the Confederation, no such right existed, nor was it agreed to till more than three years afterwards, and then with the greatest reluctance, and as a matter of compromise, as I will presently show.

Such was the action of the American Congress in 1784--a unanimous vote from the North, and two in nine from the South--in favor of excluding slavery forever after 1800, in all new States to be formed, in territory ceded or to be ceded, embracing Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi, in the extreme South. Nothing can be clearer than that the interdiction was to apply to all such States, and to constitute a fundamental Constitution between them and the original States, unalterable without the consent of Congress. The new State was to be deprived of all power to admit slavery. This proposition was made and voted for by JEFFERSON. But how many votes would such a proposition receive in this Convention? Not many, I fear, even from the free States. My friend and colleague, though strongly anti-slavery, and earnestly devoted to freedom in the Territories, is afraid I shall commit Massachusetts to this old Jeffersonian doctrine of no slavery, and no right to establish it in the new States.

From this time till July, 1787, the question of slavery in the Territories and new States remained open and unsettled. In 1785, RUFUS KING renewed Mr. JEFFERSON'S proposition to prohibit, and it was referred to a committee by the vote of eight States; but it never became a law, a few from the South always preventing it.

The Federal Convention to revise the old, or frame a new Constitution, assembled in Philadelphia on the second Monday of May, 1787. And here let me read a single paragraph from a lecture by Mr. TOOMBS, of Georgia, delivered in Boston in 1856. It is as follows:

"The history of the times and the debates in the Convention
which framed the Constitution, show that the whole subject
of slavery was much considered by them, and perplexed them
in the extreme, and that those provisions which relate to it
were earnestly considered by the State Conventions which
adopted it. Incipient legislation providing for emancipation
had already been adopted by some of the States.
Massachusetts had declared that slavery was extinguished by
her Bill of Rights. The African slave trade had already been
legislated against in many of the States, including
Virginia, Maryland, and North Carolina, the largest
slaveholding States. The public mind was unquestionably
tending toward emancipation. This feeling displayed itself
in the South as well as in the North. Some of the present
slaveholding States thought that the power to abolish, not
only the African slave trade, but slavery in the States,
ought to be given to the Federal Government; and that the
Constitution did not take this shape, was made one of the
most prominent objections to it by LUTHER MARTIN, a
distinguished member of the Convention from Maryland; and
Mr. MASON, of Virginia, was not far behind him in his
emancipation principles. Mr. MADISON sympathized to a great
extent. Anti-slavery feelings were extensively indulged in
by many members of the Convention, both from the
slaveholding and the non-slaveholding States."

Mr. MADISON'S testimony is important here. He was a member of the old Congress in New York, until the assembling of the Constitutional Convention, and took his seat as a member of that body.

The History of the Ordinance of 1787, by Hon. EDWARD COLES, contains the following statement, as made to him by Mr. MADISON:

"The old Congress held its sessions, in 1787, in New York,
while at the same time the Convention which framed the
Constitution of the United States held its sessions in
Philadelphia. Many individuals were members of both bodies,
and thus were enabled to know what was passing in each--both
sitting with closed doors and in secret sessions. The
distracting question of slavery was agitating and retarding
the labors of both, and led to conferences of
intercommunications of the members."

I quote this testimony now, to show that Conferences were held between the members of Congress and the Federal Convention, upon the subject of slavery. I shall quote farther from it on another point, after turning for a moment to the proceedings of Congress.

On the 9th July, 1787, the Convention having been in session about two months, the ordinance for the government of the Western Territory, which had been reported in a new draft on the 26th of the preceding April, and ordered to a third reading on the 10th May, and then postponed, was referred to a new committee, consisting of Messrs. CARRINGTON, of Virginia; DANE, of Massachusetts; R.H. LEE, of Virginia; KEAN, of North Carolina; and SMITH, of New York. Two days afterwards, July 11th, Mr. CARRINGTON reported what has since been known as the "Ordinance of 1787," with the exception of the 6th article of compact, prohibiting slavery. When it came up the next day, the 12th, for a second reading, Mr. DANE rose and stated as follows:

"In the committee, as ever before, since the day when
JEFFERSON first introduced the proposal to prohibit slavery
in the territory, it was found impossible to come to any
arrangement; that the committee desired to report only so
far as they were unanimous; that they, therefore, had
omitted altogether the subject of slavery; but that it was
understood that any member of the committee might,
consistently with his having concurred in the report, move
in the house to amend it in the particular of slavery. He
therefore moved as an amendment, to add a prohibition of
slavery in the following words:

"That there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary
servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the
punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly
convicted."

And as a compromise, Mr. DAVIS proposed to add the following proviso:

"Provided always, that any person escaping into the same,
from whom labor-service is lawfully claimed in any one of
the original States, such fugitive may be lawfully retained
and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or
service as aforesaid."

This was at once unanimously accepted by the slave States. The next day, the 13th, the ordinance was passed, every slave State present, viz.: Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, and every member from those States voting for it. The same prohibition--which a large majority of the South had resisted when presented alone--was now, when accompanied with the proviso, unanimously agreed to.

Here was a sudden change. But the proviso giving the right of reclamation in the said territory, only partially explains it. For a full explanation we must turn again to the Convention. And the first thing is a further extract from Mr. MADISON, respecting a letter, before quoted, as follows:

"The distracting question of slavery was agitating and
retarding the labors of both bodies--Congress and the
Convention; and led to conferences and intercommunications
of the members, which resulted in a Compromise, by which the
Northern, or anti-slavery portion of the country, agreed to
incorporate into the ordinance and Constitution, the
provision to restore fugitive slaves; and this mutual and
concurrent action was the cause of the similarity of the
provisions contained in both, and had its influence in
creating the great unanimity by which the ordinance passed,
and also in making the Constitution the more acceptable to
the slaveholders."

Mr. MADISON, also, in the Virginia Convention, urged the ratification of the Constitution for the following among other reasons, viz.:

"At present, if any slave escape to any of those States
where slaves are free, he becomes emancipated by their laws;
for the laws of the States are uncharitable to one another
in this respect. This clause was expressly inserted to
enable owners of slaves to retain them. This is a better
security than any that now exists."

General PINCKNEY, one of the delegates in the Federal Convention, from South Carolina, in a debate in the House of Representatives of that State on the Constitution, said:

"We have obtained a right to remove our slaves in whatever
part of America they may take refuge, which is a right we
had not before. In short, considering all the circumstances,
we have made the best terms we could, and on the whole I do
not think them bad."

In the speech made by Mr. WEBSTER on the 7th of March, 1850, he remarked that:

"So far as we can now learn, there was a perfect concurrence
of opinion between those respective bodies--the Congress and
the Constitution--and it resulted in this ordinance of
1787."

When Mr. WEBSTER had closed his speech, Mr. CALHOUN arose, and among other things, said:

"He, Mr. WEBSTER, states very correctly that the ordinance
commenced under the old confederation; that Congress was
sitting in New York at the time, while the Convention sat in
Philadelphia; and that there was concert of action.... When
the ordinance was passed, as I have good reason to believe,
it was upon a principle of compromise; first, that this
ordinance should contain a provision similar to the one put
in the Constitution, with respect to fugitive slaves; and
next, that it should be inserted in the Constitution; and
this was the compromise upon which the prohibition was
inserted in the ordinance of 1787."

This agrees with Mr. MADISON. The idea he conveys could scarcely have been more identical with Mr. MADISON if he had used MADISON'S words. When the Southern members of Congress voted unanimously for the 6th Article, or anti-slavery clause in the ordinance, with the proviso in respect to slaves escaping into the Territory, it was with the understanding that the Convention would insert a similar provision in the Constitution respecting slaves escaping from one State to another; and this--its insertion in both--was the compromise upon which the prohibition was inserted in the ordinance. Such is the concurrent testimony of Mr. MADISON and Mr. CALHOUN.

We will now turn to the ordinance of 1787, and see whether it applies, as the one proposed by Mr. JEFFERSON in 1784 did, to the new States as well as to the Territories, and is the basis of State as well as Territorial Governments, and was so intended. It declares as follows:

"For extending the fundamental principles of civil and
religions liberty, which form the basis whereon these
republics, their laws and constitutions, are erected; to fix
and establish these principles as the basis of all laws,
constitutions, and governments, which forever hereafter
shall be formed in the said Territory; to provide also for
the establishment of States and permanent governments
therein, and for their admission to a share in the Federal
councils, on an equal footing with the original States, at
as early periods as may be consistent with the general
interest.

"It is hereby ordained and declared by the authority
aforesaid: That the following articles shall be considered
as articles of compact between the original States and the
people and States in the said Territory, and forever remain
unalterable, unless by the common consent."

Then follows six articles of compact. Part of the fifth and the sixth are in these words:

"ART. 5.... Whenever any of the said States shall have sixty
thousand free inhabitants therein, such State shall be
admitted, by its delegates, into the Congress of the United
States, on an equal footing with the original States, in all
respects whatever; and shall be at liberty to form a
permanent Constitution and State Government; _provided_ the
Constitutional Government, so to be formed, shall be
republican and in conformity to the principles contained in
these articles."

"ART. 6. There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary
servitude in the said Territory, otherwise than in the
punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly
convicted; _Provided, always_, That any person escaping into
the same from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in
any one of the original States, such fugitive may be
lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to the person claiming his
or her labor or service as aforesaid."

Such is so much of the ordinance as bears directly upon the point I am discussing. And the Convention, as if for the very purpose of giving the unequivocal sanction of the Constitution and of the country to this compromise, and of establishing it as the permanent policy of the Government, expressly provided that the "engagements entered into before the adoption of this Constitution shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation."

This ordinance, then, which was an unalterable compact, prohibiting slavery, and fixing and establishing freedom as the basis of all laws, constitutions, and governments in the Territory forever--State Constitutions and Governments of course included--was made valid by the Constitution itself. And on this point I refer to the highest Southern authority, the late Judge BERRIEN, who was thoroughly pro-slavery in his views, and should certainly be ranked among the ablest lawyers and statesmen Georgia has ever produced, who spoke to this precise point during the compromise discussion in the United States Senate in 1850, as follows:

"Validity was given to their act by the clause in the
Constitution, which declares that contracts and engagements
entered into by the Government of the Confederation, should
be obligatory upon the Government of the United States
established by the Constitution."

It is the "act" of Congress in passing the ordinance referred to here. This being so, it was the same in effect as though the ordinance had been written word for word in the Constitution itself. A contract can be made valid, only by making it binding and obligatory upon the parties to it, according to its terms and meaning. To make an unalterable compact valid is to make it perpetually binding.

Having shown that the articles of compact in the ordinance were unalterable; that validity was given to them by the Constitution itself; that in express terms they applied to States as well as to Territories, and must, therefore, being made valid by the Constitution, necessarily have been understood and intended by Congress and the Convention to prohibit slavery as effectually in one as the other, I will now show very briefly that they were also so understood in all parts of the country.

Mr. WILSON, of Pennsylvania, a prominent member of the Federal Convention, and also of the State Convention for ratifying the Constitution, remarked in the latter as follows:

"I consider this clause as laying the foundation for
banishing slavery out of the land.... The new States which
are to be formed will be under the control of Congress in
this particular, and slavery will never be introduced among
them."

Mr. WILSON speaks of the clause authorizing the prohibition of the African slave trade.

In the Massachusetts Convention to adopt the Constitution, Gen. HEATH said:

"Slavery cannot be extended. By their ordinance Congress has
declared that the new States shall be republican States, and
have no slavery."

Colonel BLAND, a member of the Convention from Virginia, said he "wished slavery had never been introduced into America," and that "he was willing to join in any measure that would prevent its extending farther." To allow it in new States would not prevent its extending farther, and therefore it was prohibited in such States.

Doctor RAMSAY, a member of the Convention of South Carolina, in his History of the United States, says:

"Under these liberal principles, Congress, in organizing
colonies, bound themselves to impart to their inhabitants
all the privileges of coequal States.... These privileges
are not confined to any particular country or complexion.
They are communicable to the emancipated slave, for in the
new State of Ohio, slavery is altogether prohibited."

This compact, then, applies to State as well as Territorial governments, and was so understood in all sections of the country--northern, central, and southern--when the Constitution was ratified.

Let me now call attention to the very significant proviso to the sixth article. What does the word original mean, and what does the whole article mean with that word in the proviso?

"There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in
the said Territory, otherwise than in the punishment of
crimes, &c.; _Provided, always_, That any person escaping
into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully
claimed in any one of the original States, such fugitive may
be lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to the person claiming
his or her labor or service as aforesaid."

This means that there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except for the purpose of reclaiming such fugitives--and I admit that slaves were intended--as are lawfully claimed in any one of the original States. The very fact of the proviso implies that Congress understood that the right of reclamation could not exist, unless it was excepted.

And of course it could only exist for the purpose excepted. The intention was to grant the right to the original States, but to limit it to them. It is impossible to conceive of a measure for framing the proviso as it is, if that had not been the intention. As the ordinance itself made provision for the formation of new States, such States must have been in the minds of members when acting upon it. If the object had been to authorize the reclamation of slaves escaping to this territory from other States than original States, it is certain the word "original" would have been omitted. It was intended for the purpose of limiting the right.

Now observe that this article, proviso and all, is part of an unalterable compact to which the Constitution has given validity. Nobody pretends Congress has ever had the power to alter it. Mr. TOOMBS denies any such power in express terms. A law which Congress cannot alter has substantially the force and effect of a constitutional proviso. This, then, is the only law for the reclamation of fugitive slaves in the five States of the northwest territory; and there can be no other, the Constitution having made it perpetually valid.

Such obviously is the meaning and legal effect of the fugitive slave provision in the ordinance. And the meaning of that, derived as it is not merely from the consent of the Federal and State conventions, but from their concurrent action, necessarily fixes the meaning of the provision on the same subject in the Constitution, and shows how it must have been understood. As the two were parts of the same compromise, of course neither was understood to be inconsistent with the other. The provision in the Constitution is in these words:

"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the
laws thereof, escaping into another, 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."

So far as this describes, or was understood to describe, persons held to service or labor as slaves, it necessarily must also have been understood to apply only to the original States. This follows from what has already been shown. And it must have been so understood for another reason, because it was only "in" and "under" the laws of those States that persons could be held to service or labor as slaves. Under the laws of the Territories and new States, their being so held was forever prohibited. Hence, none but those escaped from one of the original States could ever be legally liable to reclamation, according to the understanding and intention of the original parties to this compact. This manifestly was the meaning of "the fathers," when the ordinance and Constitution were framed and ratified.

The two provisions must be construed together. That in the ordinance was intended for the Territories and new States, and that in the Constitution for the original States. If that in the Constitution had been intended for the Territories, it would have read, "escaping into another State or into the Territory," and that in the ordinance would have been entirely omitted. The proviso to the prohibition in the Missouri Compromise in 1820 is a striking confirmation of this. That was copied, word for word, from the ordinance of 1787, or original compromise, except substituting for the words "in any one of the States," the words "in any State or Territory of the United States," as follows:

"_Provided, always_, That any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original States, such fugitive," &c. And in the compromise of 1820:

"_Provided, always_, That any person escaping into the same from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any State or Territory of the United States, such fugitive," &c.

Why say "in any State or Territory of the United States," instead of "in any one of the original States," as in the ordinance of 1787, unless the Congress of 1820 understood the latter to limit the right of recovering fugitive slaves to the original States, and meant by the Missouri bill to extend it to all the States and Territories? They did extend it, but in palpable violation of the "spirit of the compact of the fathers," and of the "policy of 1787."

Originally the Southern States committed themselves to the policy of slavery restriction, by a compact in the nature of a contract for a consideration. By their own votes, they relinquished all pretence of right to any slaves beyond the jurisdiction of the original States. Slaveholders, as such, voluntarily shut themselves out of the new States, in consideration of the right of recovering their fugitive slaves in whatever part of America they might take refuge. The object, as I have clearly shown, was to secure to slavery in the original States the right of recovering fugitives, whether their escape should be from one of those States to another, or to the Territories and new States; but to make that the limit, both of the right of recovery on one side, and of the obligation to permit or allow it, on the other.

It follows, then:

_First_: That as between the new States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, no right of reclamation exists, or can exist, there being no power in Congress, as the South admit, to alter the compact in the ordinance of 1787, which denies this right.

_Second_: That no person, escaping from those States into any other State or Territory, can be reclaimed as a fugitive slave, because no person can be held as a slave under their laws.

_Third_: That no slave escaping from the slave States of Missouri, Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, or Florida, into Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, or Missouri, can be lawfully reclaimed as a fugitive slave, because Missouri, Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, and Florida are not _original_ States.

_Fourth_: If slaves escape from any State or Territory other than the original States, into the States of the northwestern territory, no lawful power can touch them. The moment they reach those States they become free, because labor or service cannot lawfully be claimed of them in an original State.

_Fifth_: After the Missouri Compromise of 1820, slaves escaping from Arkansas and Missouri, for example to Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, and Minnesota, could be reclaimed, but escaping to Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio, they could not be. And the Congress of 1820 so understood it. The particular in which the Missouri proviso was altered in copying from the ordinance of 1787, is proof enough of this.

But did the framers of the Government intend to distinguish in this manner between new and original slave States? Certainly not; and the reason is, they did not mean to have any new slave States. Otherwise they certainly did mean to make this distinction, for nothing can be clearer than that Louisiana and Missouri cannot go to Ohio to recover fugitive slaves within the meaning of this "compact of the fathers;" while Georgia can. Manifestly we have departed from the system devised by the fathers in allowing Missouri, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Florida to be admitted with slavery, which explains, and nothing else can, this anomalous condition of things.