Chapter IX: Front Matter (9)

_Resolved, unanimously_, That the Senate mourns the death of Hon.
ROBERT RANTOUL, JR., late a member of the House of Representatives
from Massachusetts, and tenders to his relatives a sincere sympathy
in this afflicting bereavement.

_Resolved_, As a remark of respect to the memory of the deceased,
that the Senate do now adjourn.

The resolutions were adopted, and the Senate adjourned.

NOTE.--A monument of Italian marble was erected to the memory of Mr. Rantoul in the burial-ground at Beverly. It is an upright, four-sided shaft, on the front face of which is the following inscription, written by Mr. Sumner.

Here lies the body of

ROBERT RANTOUL, JR.,

Who was born at Beverly, 13th August, 1805,
and died at Washington, 7th August, 1852.
An upright lawyer, a liberal statesman, a good citizen,
studious of the Past, yet mindful of the Future.
Throughout an active life he strove for the
improvement of his fellow-men.
The faithful friend of Education, he upheld our Public Schools.
A lover of Virtue, he opposed Intemperance by word and example.
In the name of Justice and Humanity, he labored
to abolish the punishment of Death.
Inspired by Freedom, he gave his professional services
to a slave hunted down by public clamor,
and bore his testimony, in Court and Congress,
against the cruel enactment which sanctioned the outrage.
He held many places of official trust and honor,
but the Good Works filling his days were above these.
Stranger! at least in something imitate him.

* * * * *

AUTHORSHIP OF THE ORDINANCE OF FREEDOM IN THE NORTHWEST TERRITORY.

LETTER TO HON. EDWARD COLES, AUGUST 23, 1852.

Mr. Coles has been private secretary to Mr. Jefferson, and then to Mr. Madison, and afterwards Governor of Illinois. The following extract of a letter from him to Mr. Sumner, dated Schooley's Mountain, New Jersey, August 18, 1852, raises the question of the authorship of the Ordinance of Freedom.

"Not having the pleasure of a personal acquaintance with you, I
shall ask the favor of Senator Cooper to present you this, and to
make me known to you, and thus explain the obligation you have
placed me under, as the friend of Mr. Jefferson, to correct an
error you lately made in the Senate, by which you take from him,
and give to another, one of the noblest and most consistent acts of
his life.

"In your speech in the Senate, on the occasion of the death of
Mr. Rantoul, you spoke of Nathan Dane as the "_Author_" of the
Ordinance for the government of the Territory northwest of the
Ohio. With my recollection,--for I have no book or person to
refer to at this summer retreat,--I could not have been more
surprised, if you had designated as the author of the Declaration
of Independence one of the members who added his name to it after
it had been adopted by Congress."

SENATE CHAMBER, August 23, 1852.

Dear Sir,--I have been honored by your letter of August 18th, in
which you kindly criticise an allusion by me in the Senate to
Nathan Dane, as the author of the Ordinance of 1787. You award this
high honor to Mr. Jefferson.

Believe me, I would not take from this great patriot one of his
many titles to regard. Among these, I cannot forget the early,
though unsuccessful effort, to which you refer, for the prohibition
of Slavery in the Territories of the United States. But, while
according to him just homage on this account, I cannot forget the
crowning labors of another.

I submit to you, as beyond question, that the Ordinance of 1787, as
finally adopted, was from the pen of Nathan Dane. In his great work
on American Law, published in 1824, while Mr. Jefferson was yet
alive, I find the following claim of authorship: "This ordinance
(_formed by the author of this work_) was framed mainly from the
laws of Massachusetts."[98]

In the celebrated debate of 1830, on Foot's Resolution, Mr.
Webster, in his first speech, referred to the Ordinance as "drawn
by Nathan Dane."[99] Afterwards, in his remarkable reply to Mr.
Hayne, he vindicated at length this claim of authorship. While
admitting the earlier efforts for the prohibition of Slavery
in the Territories, he says: "It is no derogation from the
credit, whatever that may be, of drawing the Ordinance, that its
principles had before been prepared and discussed in the form of
resolutions. If one should reason in that way, what would become
of the distinguished honor of the author of the Declaration of
Independence? There is not a sentiment in that paper which had not
been voted and resolved in the Assemblies, and other popular bodies
in the country, over and over again."[100]

Such, as it seems to me, is the true state of the question. To
Jefferson belongs the honor of the first effort to prohibit Slavery
in the Territories: to Dane belongs the honor of finally embodying
this Prohibition in the Ordinance drawn by his hand in 1787.

[98] Abridgment and Digest of American Law, Vol. VII. ch. 223, art.
1, § 3.

[99] Works, Vol. III. p. 263.

[100] Ibid., p. 283.

As this question has already been presented to the Senate in a
classical debate memorable in the history of the country, it seems
to me hardly advisable, at this late stage of the session, to
undertake its revival. If you should continue to think that I have
made an error, I shall be happy to correct it in any practicable
way.

* * * * *

Allow me to express my sincere respect for your character, with
which from childhood I have been familiar, and my gratitude for the
steadfast support you have ever given to the principles of Freedom
advocated by Jefferson.

I remain, dear Sir, faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

HON. EDWARD COLES.

NOTE.

The history of the efforts for the exclusion of Slavery from the Northwest Territory is thus related by Mr. Webster, in the speeches above referred to.

"An attempt has been made to transfer from the North to the South
the honor of this exclusion of Slavery from the Northwestern
Territory. The Journal, without argument or comment, refutes such
attempts. The cession by Virginia was made in March, 1784. On
the 19th of April following, a committee, consisting of Messrs.
Jefferson, Chase, and Howell, reported a plan for a temporary
government of the Territory, in which was this article: 'That,
after the year 1800, there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary
servitude in any of the said States, otherwise than in punishment
of crimes, whereof the party shall have been convicted.' Mr
Spaight, of North Carolina, moved to strike out this paragraph.
The question was put, according to the form then practised,
'Shall these words stand as a part of the plan?' New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and
Pennsylvania, seven States, voted in the affirmative; Maryland,
Virginia, and South Carolina, in the negative. North Carolina was
divided. As the consent of nine States was necessary, the words
could not stand, and were struck out accordingly. Mr. Jefferson
voted for the clause, but was overruled by his colleagues.

"In March of the next year (1785), Mr. King, of Massachusetts,
seconded by Mr. Ellery, of Rhode Island, proposed the formerly
rejected article, with this addition: 'And that this regulation
shall be an article of compact, and remain a fundamental principle
of the constitutions between the thirteen original States and each
of the States described in the resolve.' On this clause, which
provided the adequate and thorough security, the eight Northern
States at that time voted affirmatively, and the four Southern
States negatively.[101] The votes of nine States were not yet
obtained, and thus the provision was again rejected by the Southern
States. The perseverance of the North held out, and two years
afterwards the object was attained," by the passage, on the 13th of
July, 1787, with only one dissenting voice, of the "Ordinance for
the Government of the Territory of the United States Northwest of
the River Ohio."

"We are accustomed, Sir, to praise the lawgivers of Antiquity; we
help to perpetuate the fame of Solon and Lycurgus; but I doubt
whether one single law of any lawgiver, ancient or modern, has
produced effects of more distinct, marked, and lasting character
than the Ordinance of 1787. That instrument was drawn by Nathan
Dane, then and now a citizen of Massachusetts. It was adopted,
as I think I have understood, without the slightest alteration;
and certainly it has happened to few men to be the authors of
a political measure of more large and enduring consequence.
It fixed forever the character of the population in the vast
regions northwest of the Ohio, by excluding from them involuntary
servitude. It impressed on the soil itself, while it was yet a
wilderness, an incapacity to sustain any other than freemen. It
laid the interdict against personal servitude in original compact,
not only deeper than all local law, but deeper, also, than all
local constitutions."

[101] More precisely, the seven Northern States, together with
Maryland, affirmatively,--and four of the Southern States,
namely, Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia,
negatively,--Delaware being unrepresented.

* * * * *

FREEDOM NATIONAL, SLAVERY SECTIONAL.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON A MOTION TO REPEAL THE FUGITIVE SLAVE
ACT, AUGUST 26, 1852.

Nihil autem gloriosius libertate præter virtutem, si tamen libertas recte a virtute sejungitur.--JOHN OF SALISBURY.

If any man thinks that the interest of these Nations and the interest of Christianity are two separate and distinct things, I wish my soul may never enter into his secret.--OLIVER CROMWELL.

Mr. Madison thought it WRONG to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.--_Debates in the Federal Convention_, August 25, 1787.

"O Slave, I have bought thee." "That is thy business," he replied. "Wilt thou run away?" "That is my business," said the slave.

_Arabian Proverb._

Aliæ sunt leges Cæsarum, aliæ Christi: aliud Papinianus, aliud Paulus noster præcipit.

ST. JEROME, _Epistola ad Oceanum de Morte Fabiolæ_.

If the marshal of the host bids us do anything, shall we do it, if it be against the great captain? Again, if the great captain bid us do anything, and the king or the emperor commandeth us to do another, dost thou doubt that we must obey the commandment of the king or emperor, and contemn the commandment of the great captain? Therefore, if the king or the emperor bid one thing, and God another, we must obey God, and contemn and not regard neither king nor emperor.

HENRY VIII., _Glasse of Truth_.

Si _la peste_ avoit des charges, des dignités, des honneurs, des bénéfices et des pensions à distribuer, elle auroit bientôt des théologiens et des juris-consultes qui soutiendroient qu'elle est de droit divin, et que c'est un péché de s'opposer à ses ravages.

ABBÉ DE MABLY, _Droits et Devoirs du Citoyen_, Lettre II.

_Cleanthes._ What, to kill innocents, Sir? It cannot be. It is no
rule in justice there to punish.

_Lawyer._ Oh, Sir, You understand a conscience, but not law.

_Cleanthes._ Why, Sir, is there so main a difference?

_Lawyer._ You'll never be good lawyer, if you understand not that.

_Cleanthes._ I think, then, 'tis the best to be a bad one.

MASSINGER, _The Old Law_, Act I. Sc. 1.

Among the assemblies of the great
A greater Ruler takes his seat;
The God of heaven as judge surveys
Those gods on earth and all their ways.

Why will ye, then, frame wicked laws?
Or why support the unrighteous cause?

ISAAC WATTS.

When Mr. Sumner entered the Senate, he found what were known as the Compromise Measures already adopted, among which was the odious Fugitive Slave Bill. These were maintained by the constant assumption that Slavery was a national institution, entitled to the protection of the Nation, while those who opposed them were denounced as Sectionalists. These words were made to play a great part. Both the old parties, Whig and Democrat, plumed themselves upon being _national_, and one of their hardest hits at a political opponent was to charge him with _sectionalism_. Mr. Sumner undertook, while showing the unconstitutionality and offensive character of the Fugitive Slave Bill, to turn these party words upon his opponents, insisting that Slavery was Sectional and Freedom National. The title of the speech embodies this fundamental idea, which was generally adopted by the opponents of Slavery.

In making this effort Mr. Sumner had against him both the old parties, fresh from their National Conventions. The Democrats had just nominated Franklin Pierce for the Presidency, and the Whigs General Scott; but the two parties concurred on the Slavery Question, and especially in support of the Fugitive Slave Bill, which was named in both platforms.

The Democrats, in their platform, declared as follows:--

"That the Democratic party will resist all attempts at renewing, in
Congress or out of it, the agitation of the Slavery question, under
whatever shape or color the attempt may be made."

The Whigs, in their platform, declared as follows:--

"That ... we will discountenance all efforts to continue or renew
such agitation, whenever, wherever, or however the attempt may be
made."

Here was nothing less than a joint gag, which would have been enforced against Mr. Sumner, as it had been a few weeks before, if he had not succeeded in planting himself on a motion clearly in order, which opened the whole question. Before speaking, he was approached by several, who asked him to give up his purpose, or at least, if he spoke, not to divide the Senate. To all he replied, that, God willing, he should speak, and would press the question to a vote, if he were left alone. A curious parallel to this incident will be found in the Life of Sir Fowell Buxton, when this eminent Abolitionist was pressed not to bring forward in the House of Commons his motion against Slavery, and especially not to divide the House. Against the entreaties of friends, personal and political, he persevered; and this firmness of purpose was the beginning of that victory by which shortly afterwards British Emancipation was secured.[102]

From the statement in the _Globe_ it appears that Mr. Sumner spoke for three hours and three quarters, when a debate ensued, in which the following Senators took part: Messrs. Clemens, of Alabama, Badger, of North Carolina, Dodge, of Iowa, Hale, of New Hampshire, Douglas, of Illinois, Weller, of California, Chase, of Ohio, Rusk, of Texas, Toucey, of Connecticut, Bradbury, of Maine, Hunter, of Virginia, James, of Rhode Island, Bright, of Indiana, Cooper, of Pennsylvania, Butler, of South Carolina, Brodhead, of Pennsylvania, Pratt, of Maryland, Mason, of Virginia, and Cass, of Michigan.

Mr. Clemens opened the debate with personal attack which is a specimen of the brutalities of Slavery; but there was no call to order. He was followed by Mr. Badger, who undertook a formal reply, but could not avoid the personalities which were so natural to speakers vindicating Slavery. He began by remarking: "I think I may say, without hazard or fear of contradiction, that the Senate of the United States never heard a more extraordinary speech than that which has just been delivered by the Senator from Massachusetts,--extraordinary in its character, and most extraordinary in the time and the occasion which the gentleman chose for its delivery.... Three hours and three quarters has the gentleman occupied, at this late period of the session, with this discussion." After considering at some length the constitutionality of the Fugitive Slave Bill, especially in answer to Mr. Sumner, he proceeded to quote from the speech at Faneuil Hall (_ante_, Vol. II. pp. 398-424) denouncing the Fugitive Slave Bill, and then said, "I shudder, when I think of these expressions." Numerous quotations followed, and he charged upon the speech a pernicious influence on the public mind, stimulating to violence. After exposing the former speech, Mr. Badger proceeded to comment again upon that just made. "This speech, Mr. President, is well calculated to stir up the people of Massachusetts. They look to the honorable Senator for direction and guidance; they consider him a 'marvellous proper man,' and, availing himself of his influence over them, he delivers himself of such a tirade of abuse upon the law of his own country--a law passed by this very Senate, in which he knows there are many gentlemen who voted for and still support that law--as is calculated, if any one lent a moment's credence to what he says, to cover us with scorn.... Does he hope to accomplish anything, except to stir up sedition at home against this law, and make the streets of Boston again the scene of disgraceful riots and lawless violence by the lawless opposers of the Constitution and laws of the United States? Never, Sir, since I have been a member of this body, has the Senate witnessed such an exhibition." Then, with a sneer at Antislavery men as of "one idea," the Senator added, that, "admitting everything they say as to the desirableness of abolishing Slavery, it is utterly impracticable."

[102] Memoirs of Sir Thomas Fowell Buxton, by his Son, Ch. 18.

Mr. Dodge and Mr. Douglas insisted upon the obligations under the Constitution. So did Mr. Toucey, Mr. Bradbury, Mr. Bright, and others. Mr. Cass justified his original support of the Compromise measures by his fear for the Union, saying, "To speak in ordinary language, I was almost frightened to death.... I would have voted for twenty Fugitive Slave Laws, if I had believed the safety of the Union depended upon my doing so"; and then he added: "Sir, the Fugitive Slave Law is now in force. It shall never be touched, or altered, or shaken, or repealed, by any vote of mine. That is the plain English of it."

Mr. Weller imitated Mr. Clemens and Mr. Badger in personalities. He began by a confession as follows. "I will say, Sir, at the outset, that this is the first time in the course of my life that I have listened to the whole of an Abolition speech. I did not know that it was possible that I could endure a speech for over three hours upon the subject of the Abolition of Slavery. But this oration of the Senator from Massachusetts to-day has been so handsomely embellished with poetry, both Latin and English, so full of classical allusions and rhetorical flourishes, as to make it much more palatable than I supposed it could have been made." He then proceeded to say, among other things, "If the constituents of the Senator from Massachusetts follow his direction, if they obey his counsels, murder, I repeat, is inevitable; and upon your hands, Sir, ay, upon your hands [addressing Mr. SUMNER], must rest the blood of those murdered men.... This forcible resistance is not only calculated to strike at the very foundation of our republican institutions by dissolving the Union, but to bring upon the head of the learned Senator from Massachusetts the blood of murdered men. He who counsels murder is himself a murderer." Here Mr. Weller followed the lead of Mr. Badger in misrepresenting the speech just made. Mr. Sumner interrupted him to say,

"Not one word has fallen from my lips to-day, suggesting in any way
a resort to force."

Mr. Sumner was not without defenders, and what they said belongs to this history. Early in the debate Mr. Hale expressed himself strongly.

"I feel that I should be doing injustice to my own feelings, and
injustice to my friend, the Senator from Massachusetts, if I were
to fail at this time to express the very great gratification with
which I listened to his speech. In saying that, I do not mean
to pass by entirely the honorable Senator from North Carolina
[Mr. BADGER], for I listened to him, as I always do, with great
pleasure; but justice compels me to say that by far the best part
of his speech was the extract which he read from a former speech of
the honorable Senator from Massachusetts. [_Laughter._] I listened
to them both with great pleasure; but, Sir, I feel bound to say
to-day, that it is my deliberate conviction that the honorable
Senator from Massachusetts, if he were actuated by as corrupt and
selfish motives as can possibly be attributed to him, has, so far
as his own personal fame and reputation are concerned, done enough
by the effort he has made here to-day to place himself side by side
with the first orators of antiquity, and as far ahead of any living
American orator as Freedom is ahead of Slavery. I believe that he
has formed to-day a new era in the history of the politics and of
the eloquence of the country, and that in future generations the
young men of this nation will be stimulated to effort by the record
of what an American Senator has this day done, to which all the
appeals drawn from ancient history would be entirely inadequate.
Yes, Sir, he has to-day made a draft upon the gratitude of the
friends of humanity and of liberty that will not be paid through
many generations, and the memory of which shall endure as long as
the English language is spoken, or the history of this Republic
forms a part of the annals of the world. That, Sir, is what I
believe; and if I had one other feeling, or could indulge in it, in
reference to that effort, it would be a feeling of envy, that it
was not in me to tread even at an humble distance in the path which
he has so nobly and eloquently illustrated."

Mr. Chase adopted the argument of Mr. Sumner against the Fugitive Slave Bill, and vindicated him personally.

"The argument which my friend from Massachusetts has addressed
to us to-day was not an assault upon the Constitution. It was a
noble vindication of that great charter of government from the
perversions of the advocates of the Fugitive Slave Act.... What
has the Senator from Massachusetts asserted? That the fugitive
servant clause of the Constitution is a clause of compact between
the States, and confers no legislative power upon Congress. He has
arrayed history and reason in support of this proposition; and I
avow my conviction, now and here, that, logically and historically,
his argument is impregnable, entirely impregnable....

"Let me add, Mr. President, that in my judgment the speech of my
friend from Massachusetts will mark AN ERA in American history.
It will distinguish the day when the advocates of that theory of
governmental policy, constitutional construction, which he has so
ably defended and so brilliantly illustrated, no longer content to
stand on the defensive in the contest with Slavery, boldly attacked
the very citadel of its power, in that doctrine of finality which
two of the political parties of the country, through their national
organizations, are endeavoring to establish as the impregnable
defence of its usurpations."

* * * * *

On the close of the debate, the proposition of Mr. Sumner was rejected by the following vote.

YEAS,--Messrs. Chase, Hale, Sumner, and Wade,--4.

NAYS,--Messrs. Adams, Badger, Bayard, Bell, Borland, Bradbury, Bright, Brodhead, Brooke, Butler, Cass, Charlton, Clarke, Clemens, Cooper, Dawson, De Saussure, Dodge, of Iowa, Douglas, Felch, Fish, Geyer, Gwin, Hamlin, Houston, Hunter, James, Jones, of Iowa, King, Mallory, Mangum, Mason, Meriwether, Miller, Morton, Pearce, Pratt, Rusk, Shields, Smith, Soulé, Spruance, Toucey, Underwood, Upham, Walker, and Weller,--47.

Mr. Seward was absent,--probably constrained by his prominence as a supporter of General Scott.

* * * * *

This speech, when published, found an extensive echo. It was circulated not only through the press, but in large pamphlet editions, amounting to several hundred thousand. It was translated into German. Two or more editions appeared in England. In the preface to the English edition of "Uncle Tom's Cabin," Lord Carlisle associated the speech with that work, and signalized "the closeness of its logic and the masculine vigor of its eloquence." Lord Shaftesbury, in a letter to the London Times, wrote, "What noble eloquence!" Mr. Combe, the phrenologist, in a letter to a distinguished American, which was published at the time, said: "I have read every word of this speech with pleasure and with pain. The pain arose from the subject,--the pleasure from sympathy with and admiration of the speaker. I have long desired to know the merits of that most cruel and iniquitous enactment, and this speech has made them clear as day." The London Examiner said: "Apart from its noble and affecting eloquence, it is one of the closest and most convincing arguments we have ever read on the policy of the earlier and greater, as contrasted with that of the later and meaner statesmen of America." These testimonies might be accumulated. They are introduced only so far as may be important in giving an idea of the contemporaneous reception of this speech. The title had a vogue beyond the speech itself, as it became one of the countersigns of our politics.

Letters also illustrate the speech. Mr. Seward, who was not in his seat at its delivery, wrote, on reading it: "Your speech is an admirable, a great, a very great one. That is my opinion, and everybody around me, of all sorts, confesses it." Mr. Chase wrote also: "I have read, as well as heard, your truly great speech. Hundreds of thousands will read it, and everywhere it will carry conviction to all willing to be convinced, and will infuse a feeling of incertitude and a fearful looking for judgment in the minds of those who resist the light and toil in the harness of party platforms irreconcilable with justice." Mr. Wilson, who had not yet been elected to the Senate, wrote: "I have read your glorious speech. How proud I am that God gave me the power to aid in placing you in the Senate! You have exhausted the question. Hereafter all that can be said will be to repeat your speech. It will afford to any one the most complete view of the questions in dispute of anything ever published." Hon. Stephen C. Phillips, who had taken a leading part in the Free-Soil organization of Massachusetts, wrote: "I regard it as a contribution of inestimable value to our noble cause, worth all the labor, all the time, all the self-sacrifice, and all the misrepresentation it has cost you. It is statesmanlike in all its features, and does all that is necessary to place our simple and entire design in its true light before the country, and before the world, and in the records of history." Wendell Phillips, while differing on some points, wrote: "I have read your speech with envious admiration. It is admirable, both as a masterly argument and a noble testimony, and will endear you to thousands." These extracts, which might be extended, show the response to this effort.

* * * * *

SPEECH.

THURSDAY, _26th August, 1852_.--The Civil and Diplomatic Appropriation Bill being under consideration, the following amendment was moved by Mr. Hunter, of Virginia, on the recommendation of the Committee on Finance.

"That, where the ministerial officers of the United States have or
shall incur extraordinary expense in executing the laws thereof,
the payment of which is not specifically provided for, the
President of the United States is authorized to allow the payment
thereof, under the special taxation of the District or Circuit
Court of the District in which the said services have been or shall
be rendered, to be paid from the appropriation for defraying the
expenses of the Judiciary."

MR. SUMNER seized the opportunity for which he had been waiting, and at once moved the following amendment to the amendment:--

"_Provided_, That no such allowance shall be authorized for any
expenses incurred in executing the Act of September 18, 1850, for
the surrender of fugitives from service or labor; which said Act is
hereby repealed."

On this he took the floor, and spoke as follows.

MR. PRESIDENT,--Here is a provision for extraordinary expenses
incurred in executing the laws of the United States. Extraordinary
expenses! Sir, beneath these specious words lurks the very subject
on which, by a solemn vote of this body, I was refused a hearing.
Here it is; no longer open to the charge of being an "abstraction,"
but actually presented for practical legislation; not introduced
by me, but by the Senator from Virginia [Mr. HUNTER], on the
recommendation of an important committee of the Senate; not
brought forward weeks ago, when there was ample time for
discussion, but only at this moment, without any reference to the
late period of the session. The amendment which I offer proposes to
remove one chief occasion of these extraordinary expenses. Beyond
all controversy or cavil it is strictly in order. And now, at last,
among these final crowded days of our duties here, but at this
earliest opportunity, I am to be heard,--not as a favor, but as a
right. The graceful usages of this body may be abandoned, but the
established privileges of debate cannot be abridged. Parliamentary
courtesy may be forgotten, but parliamentary law must prevail. The
subject is broadly before the Senate. By the blessing of God it
shall be discussed.

Sir, a severe lawgiver of early Greece vainly sought to secure
permanence for his imperfect institutions by providing that the
citizen who at any time attempted their repeal or alteration
should appear in the public assembly with a halter about his neck,
ready to be drawn, if his proposition failed. A tyrannical spirit
among us, in unconscious imitation of this antique and discarded
barbarism, seeks to surround an offensive institution with similar
safeguard. In the existing distemper of the public mind, and at
this present juncture, no man can enter upon the service which I
now undertake, without personal responsibility, such as can be
sustained only by that sense of duty which, under God, is always
our best support. That personal responsibility I accept. Before the
Senate and the country let me be held accountable for this act and
for every word which I utter.

With me, Sir, there is no alternative. Painfully convinced of
the unutterable wrong and woe of Slavery,--profoundly believing,
that, according to the true spirit of the Constitution and the
sentiments of the Fathers, it can find no place under our National
Government,--that it is in every respect _sectional_, and in no
respect _national_,--that it is always and everywhere creature and
dependant of the _States_, and never anywhere creature or dependant
of the _Nation_,--and that the _Nation_ can never, by legislative
or other act, impart to it any support, under the Constitution of
the United States,--with these convictions I could not allow this
session to reach its close without making or seizing an opportunity
to declare myself openly against the usurpation, injustice, and
cruelty of the late intolerable enactment for the recovery of
fugitive slaves. Full well I know, Sir, the difficulties of this
discussion, arising from prejudices of opinion and from adverse
conclusions strong and sincere as my own. Full well I know that
I am in a small minority, with few here to whom I can look for
sympathy or support. Full well I know that I must utter things
unwelcome to many in this body, which I cannot do without pain.
Full well I know that the institution of Slavery in our country,
which I now proceed to consider, is as sensitive as it is powerful,
possessing a power to shake the whole land, with a sensitiveness
that shrinks and trembles at the touch. But while these things
may properly prompt me to caution and reserve, they cannot change
my duty, or my determination to perform it. For this I willingly
forget myself and all personal consequences. The favor and
good-will of my fellow-citizens, of my brethren of the Senate, Sir,
grateful to me as they justly are, I am ready, if required, to
sacrifice. Whatever I am or may be I freely offer to this cause.

Here allow, for one moment, a reference to myself and my position.
Sir, I have never been a politician. The slave of principles, I
call no party master. By sentiment, education, and conviction a
friend of Human Rights in their utmost expansion, I have ever
most sincerely embraced the Democratic Idea,--not, indeed, as
represented or professed by any party, but according to its real
significance, as transfigured in the Declaration of Independence
and in the injunctions of Christianity. In this idea I see no
narrow advantage merely for individuals or classes, but the
sovereignty of the people, and the greatest happiness of all
secured by equal laws. Amidst the vicissitudes of public affairs
I shall hold fast always to this idea, and to any political party
which truly embraces it.

Party does not constrain me; nor is my independence lessened by
any relations to the office which gives me a title to be heard
on this floor. Here, Sir, I speak proudly. By no effort, by no
desire of my own, I find myself a Senator of the United States.
Never before have I held public office of any kind. With the ample
opportunities of private life I was content. No tombstone for me
could bear a fairer inscription than this: "Here lies one who,
without the honors or emoluments of public station, did something
for his fellow-men." From such simple aspirations I was taken
away by the free choice of my native Commonwealth, and placed at
this responsible post of duty, without personal obligation of any
kind, beyond what was implied in my life and published words. The
earnest friends by whose confidence I was first designated asked
nothing from me, and throughout the long conflict which ended in my
election rejoiced in the position which I most carefully guarded.
To all my language was uniform: that I did not desire to be brought
forward; that I would do nothing to promote the result; that I had
no pledges or promises to offer; that the office should seek me,
and not I the office; and that it should find me in all respects an
independent man, bound to no party and to no human being, but only,
according to my best judgment, to act for the good of all. Again,
Sir, I speak with pride, both for myself and others, when I add
that these avowals found a sympathizing response. In this spirit I
have come here, and in this spirit I shall speak to-day.

Rejoicing in my independence, and claiming nothing from party ties,
I throw myself upon the candor and magnanimity of the Senate. I
ask your attention; I trust not to abuse it. I may speak strongly,
for I shall speak openly and from the strength of my convictions.
I may speak warmly, for I shall speak from the heart. But in no
event can I forget the amenities which belong to debate, and which
especially become this body. Slavery I must condemn with my whole
soul; but here I need only borrow the language of slaveholders; nor
would it accord with my habits or my sense of justice to exhibit
them as the impersonation of the institution--Jefferson calls it
the "enormity"[103]--which they cherish. Of them I do not speak;
but without fear and without favor, as without impeachment of any
person, I assail this wrong. Again, Sir, I may err; but it will
be with the Fathers. I plant myself on the ancient ways of the
Republic, with its grandest names, its surest landmarks, and all
its original altar-fires about me.

[103] Letter to Dr. Price, August 7, 1785: Memoir, Correspondence,
etc., ed. Randolph, Vol. I. p. 269; Writings, Vol. I. p. 377.

And now, on the very threshold, I encounter the objection, that
there is a final settlement, in principle and substance, of the
question of Slavery, and that all discussion of it is closed.
Both the old political parties, by formal resolutions, in recent
conventions at Baltimore, have united in this declaration. On a
subject which for years has agitated the public mind, which yet
palpitates in every heart and burns on every tongue, which in
its immeasurable importance dwarfs all other subjects, which by
its constant and gigantic presence throws a shadow across these
halls, which at this very time calls for appropriations to meet
extraordinary expenses it has caused, they impose the rule of
silence. According to them, Sir, we may speak of everything except
that alone which is most present in all our minds.

To this combined effort I might fitly reply, that, with flagrant
inconsistency, it challenges the very discussion it pretends to
forbid. Their very declaration, on the eve of an election, is, of
course, submitted to the consideration and ratification of the
people. Debate, inquiry, discussion, are the necessary consequence.
Silence becomes impossible. Slavery, which you profess to banish
from public attention, openly by your invitation enters every
political meeting and every political convention. Nay, at this
moment it stalks into this Senate, crying, like the daughters of
the horseleech, "Give! give!"

But no unanimity of politicians can uphold the baseless assumption,
that a law, or any conglomerate of laws, under the name of
Compromise, or howsoever called, is final. Nothing can be plainer
than this,--that by no parliamentary device or knot can any
Legislature tie the hands of a succeeding Legislature, so as to
prevent the full exercise of its constitutional powers. Each
Legislature, under a just sense of its responsibility, must judge
for itself; and if it think proper, it may revise, or amend, or
absolutely undo the work of any predecessor. The laws of the Medes
and Persians are said proverbially to have been unalterable; but
they stand forth in history as a single example where the true
principles of all law have been so irrationally defied.

To make a law final, so as not to be reached by Congress, is, by
mere legislation, to fasten a new provision on the Constitution.
Nay, more; it gives to the law a character which the very
Constitution does not possess. The wise Fathers did not treat
the country as a Chinese foot, never to grow after infancy; but,
anticipating progress, they declared expressly that their great
Act is not final. According to the Constitution itself, there is
not one of its existing provisions--not even that with regard to
fugitives from labor--which may not at all times be reached by
amendment, and thus be drawn into debate. This is rational and
just. Sir, nothing from man's hands, nor law nor constitution, can
be final. Truth alone is final.

Inconsistent and absurd, this effort is tyrannical also. The
responsibility for the recent Slave Act, and for Slavery everywhere
within the jurisdiction of Congress, necessarily involves the
right to discuss them. To separate these is impossible. Like
the twenty-fifth rule[104] of the House of Representatives
against petitions on Slavery,--now repealed and dishonored,--the
Compromise, as explained and urged, is a curtailment of the actual
powers of legislation, and a perpetual denial of the indisputable
principle, that the right to deliberate is coextensive with the
responsibility for an act. To sustain Slavery, it is now proposed
to trample on _free speech_. In any country this would be grievous;
but here, where the Constitution expressly provides against
abridging freedom of speech, it is a special outrage. In vain do we
condemn the despotisms of Europe, while we borrow the rigors with
which they repress Liberty, and guard their own uncertain power.
For myself, in no factious spirit, but solemnly and in loyalty to
the Constitution, as a Senator of the United States, representing
a free Commonwealth, I protest against this wrong. On Slavery,
as on every other subject, I claim the right to be heard. That
right I cannot, I will not abandon. "Give me the liberty to know,
to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all
liberties":[105] these are glowing words, flashed from the soul
of John Milton in his struggles with English tyranny. With equal
fervor they should be echoed now by every American not already a
slave.

[104] Originally the twenty-first, adopted January 28, 1840 (26th
Cong. 1st Sess.), by Yeas 114, Nays 108; rescinded, on motion of
John Quincy Adams, December 3, 1844 (28th Cong. 2d Sess.), by Yeas
108, Nays 80. It will be observed that the vote of the opponents
of the rule was precisely the same (108) on its adoption as on its
abrogation. Obviously many of the original supporters or their
successors withheld their votes on the latter occasion. The rule in
question was in these words: "No petition, memorial, resolution,
or other paper, praying the abolition of slavery in the District
of Columbia, or any State or Territory, or the slave-trade between
the States or Territories of the United States in which it now
exists, shall be received by this House, or entertained in any way
whatever."

[105] Milton, Areopagitica: A Speech for the Liberty of Unlicensed
Printing: Prose Works, ed. Symmons, Vol. I. p. 325.

But, Sir, this effort is impotent as tyrannical. Convictions of
the heart cannot be repressed. Utterances of conscience must be
heard. They break forth with irrepressible might. As well attempt
to check the tides of Ocean, the currents of the Mississippi,
or the rushing waters of Niagara. The discussion of Slavery will
proceed, wherever two or three are gathered together,--by the
fireside, on the highway, at the public meeting, in the church. The
movement against Slavery is from the Everlasting Arm. Even now it
is gathering its forces, soon to be confessed everywhere. It may
not be felt yet in the high places of office and power, but all who
can put their ears humbly to the ground will hear and comprehend
its incessant and advancing tread.

The relations of the National Government to Slavery, though plain
and obvious, are constantly misunderstood. A popular belief at
this moment makes Slavery a national institution, and of course
renders its support a national duty. The extravagance of this
error can hardly be surpassed. An institution which our fathers
most carefully omitted to name in the Constitution, which,
according to the debates in the Convention, they refused to cover
with any "sanction," and which, at the original organization of
the Government, was merely _sectional_, existing nowhere on the
_national_ territory, is now, above all other things, blazoned as
national. Its supporters pride themselves as national. The old
political parties, while upholding it, claim to be national. A
National Whig is simply a Slavery Whig, and a National Democrat is
simply a Slavery Democrat, in contradistinction to all who regard
Slavery as a sectional institution, within the exclusive control of
the States, and with which the nation has nothing to do.

As Slavery assumes to be national, so, by an equally strange
perversion, Freedom is degraded to be sectional, and all who uphold
it, under the National Constitution, are made to share this same
epithet. Honest efforts to secure its blessings everywhere within
the jurisdiction of Congress are scouted as sectional; and this
cause, which the founders of our National Government had so much
at heart, is called _Sectionalism_. These terms, now belonging to
the commonplaces of political speech, are adopted and misapplied
by most persons without reflection. But here is the power of
Slavery. According to a curious tradition of the French language,
Louis the Fourteenth, the Grand Monarch, by an accidental error
of speech, among supple courtiers, changed the gender of a noun.
But Slavery does more. It changes word for word. It teaches men to
say _national_ instead of _sectional_, and _sectional_ instead of
_national_.

Slavery national! Sir, this is a mistake and absurdity, fit to
have a place in some new collection of Vulgar Errors, by some
other Sir Thomas Browne, with the ancient, but exploded stories,
that the toad has a gem in its head, and that ostriches digest
iron. According to the true spirit of the Constitution, and
the sentiments of the Fathers, _Slavery_, and not Freedom, is
_sectional_, while _Freedom_, and not Slavery, is _national_. On
this unanswerable proposition I take my stand, and here commences
my argument.

The subject presents itself under two principal heads: first, _the
true relations of the National Government to Slavery_, wherein it
will appear that there is no national fountain from which Slavery
can be derived, and no national power, under the Constitution, by
which it can be supported. Enlightened by this general survey,
we shall be prepared to consider, secondly, _the true nature of
the provision for the rendition of fugitives from service_, and
herein especially the unconstitutional and offensive legislation of
Congress in pursuance thereof.