Chapter CXXXV: Slavery Agitation (2)

"Letters of a most distressing nature have been received from
Mr. George Thompson, the zealous and devoted missionary of
slave emancipation, who has gone from this country to the
United States, and who writes from Boston. He says that 'the
North (that is, New England, where slavery does not exist),
has universally sympathized with the South,' in opposition to
the abolitionists; that 'the North has let fall the mask;'
that 'merchants and mechanics, priests and politicians, have
alike stood forth the defenders of Southern despots, and the
furious denouncers of Northern philanthropy;' that all parties
of politics, especially the supporters of the two rivals for
the presidential office (Van Buren and Webster), vie with each
other in denouncing the abolitionists; and that even religious
men shun them, except when the abolitionists can fairly gain a
hearing from them. With regard to himself, he speaks as follows:
'Rewards are offered for my abduction and assassination; and
in every direction I meet with those who believe they would be
doing God and their country service by depriving me of life.
I have appeared in public, and some of my escapes from the
hands of my foes have been truly providential. On Friday last,
I narrowly escaped losing my life in Concord, New Hampshire.'
'Boston, September 11.--This morning a short gallows was found
standing opposite the door of my house, 23 Bay-street, in this
city, now occupied by Garrison. Two halters hung from the beam,
with the words above them, By order of Judge Lynch!'"

Mr. Hill corroborated the account which this emissary gave of his disastrous mission, and added that he had escaped from Concord in the night, and in woman's clothes: and then said:

"The present agitation in the North is kept up by the
application of money; it is a state of things altogether forced.
Agents are hired, disguised in the character of ministers
of the Gospel, to preach abolition of slavery where slavery
does not exist; and presses are kept in constant employment to
scatter abolition publications through the country. Deny the
right of petition to the misguided men and women who are induced
from no bad motive to petition for the abolition of slavery in
the District of Columbia, and you do more to increase their
numbers than will thousands of dollars paid to the emissaries
who traverse the country to distribute abolition tracts and to
spread abolition doctrines. Continue to debate abolition in
either branch of Congress, and you more effectually subserve
the incendiary views of the movers of abolition than any thing
they can do for themselves. It may suit those who have been
disappointed in all their political projects, to try what this
subject of abolition will now avail them. Such men will be
likely to find, in the end, that the people have too strong
attachment for that happy Union, to which we owe all our
prosperity and happiness, to be thrown from their propriety at
every agitating blast which may be blown across the land."

Mr. Webster gave his opinion in favor of receiving the petitions, not to grant their prayer, but to yield to a constitutional right on the part of the petitioners; and said:

"He thought they ought to be received, referred, and considered.
That was what was usually done with petitions on other
subjects, and what had been uniformly done, heretofore, with
petitions on this subject also. Those who believed they had an
undoubted right to petition, and that Congress had undoubted
constitutional authority over the subjects to which their
petitions related, would not be satisfied with a refusal to
receive the petitions, nor with a formal reception of them,
followed by an immediate vote rejecting their prayer. In
parliamentary terms there was some difference between these two
modes of proceeding, but it would be considered as little else
than a difference in mere form. He thought the question must at
some time be met, considered, and discussed. In this matter, as
in others, Congress must stand on its reasons. It was in vain
to attempt to shut the door against petitions, and expect in
that way to avoid discussion. On the presentment of the first
of these petitions, he had been of opinion that it ought to
be referred to the proper committee. He was of that opinion
still. The subject could not be stifled. It must be discussed,
and he wished it should be discussed calmly, dispassionately,
and fully, in all its branches, and all its bearings. To
reject the prayer of a petition at once, without reference or
consideration, was not respectful; and in this case nothing
could be possibly gained by going out of the usual course of
respectful consideration."

The trial votes were had upon the petition of the Society of Friends, the Caln petition; and on Mr. Calhoun's motion to refuse to receive it. His motion was largely rejected--35 to 10. The vote to receive was: Messrs. Benton, Brown, Buchanan, Clay, Clayton, Crittenden, Davis, Ewing of Illinois, Ewing of Ohio, Goldsborough, Grundy, Hendricks, Hill, Hubbard, Kent, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Knight, Linn, McKean, Morris, Naudain, Niles, Prentiss, Robbins, Robinson, Ruggles, Shepley, Southard, Swift, Tallmadge, Tipton, Tomlinson, Wall, Webster, Wright. The nays were: Messrs. Black, Calhoun, Cuthbert, Leigh, Moore, Nicholas, Porter, Preston, Walker, White.

The motion to reject the petition being thus lost (only a meagre minority of the Southern members voting for it), the motion to reject its prayer next came on; and on that motion Mr. Calhoun refused to vote, saying:

"The Senate has by voting to receive this petition, on the
ground on which the reception was placed, assumed the principle
that we are bound to receive petitions to abolish slavery,
whether in this District or the States; that is, to take
jurisdiction of the question of abolishing slavery whenever
and in whatever manner the abolitionists may think proper to
present the question. He considered this decision pregnant with
consequences of the most disastrous character. When and how
they were to occur it was not for him to predict; but he could
not be mistaken in the fact that there must follow a long train
of evils. What, he would ask, must hereafter be the condition
on this floor of the senators from the slaveholding States? No
one can expect that what has been done will arrest the progress
of the abolitionists. Its effects must be the opposite, and
instead of diminishing must greatly increase the number of the
petitions. Under the decision of the Senate, we of the South are
doomed to sit here and receive in silence, however outrageous
or abusive in their language towards us and those whom we
represent, the petitions of the incendiaries who are making
war on our institutions. Nay, more, we are bound, without the
power of resistance to see the Senate, at the request of these
incendiaries, whenever they think proper to petition, extend
its jurisdiction on the subject of slavery over the States as
well as this District. Thus deprived of all power of effectual
resistance, can any thing be considered more hopeless and
degrading than our situation; to sit here, year after year,
session after session, hearing ourselves and our constituents
vilified by thousands of incendiary publications in the form of
petitions, of which the Senate, by its decision, is bound to
take jurisdiction, and against which we must rise like culprits
to defend ourselves, or permit them to go uncontradicted and
unresisted? We must ultimately be not only degraded in our own
estimation and that of the world, but be exhausted and worn out
in such a contest."

This was a most unjustifiable assumption on the part of Mr. Calhoun, to say that in voting to receive this petition, confined to slavery in the District of Columbia, the Senate took jurisdiction of the question in the States--jurisdiction of the question of abolishing slavery whenever, and in whatever manner, the abolitionists might ask. It was unjustifiable towards the Senate, and giving a false alarm to the South. The thirty-five senators voting to receive the petition wholly repudiated the idea of interfering with slavery in the States. Twelve of them were from the slaveholding States, so that Mr. Calhoun was outvoted in his own half of the Union. The petition itself was confined to the object of emancipation and the suppression of the slave trade in the District of Columbia, where it alleged, and truly that Congress possessed jurisdiction; and there was nothing either in the prayer, or in the language of the petition to justify the inferences drawn from its reception, or to justify the assumption that it was an insult and outrage to the senators from the slaveholding States. It was a brief and temperate memorial in these words:

"The memorial of Caln Quarterly Meeting of the Religious Society
of Friends, commonly called Quakers, respectfully represents:
That, having long felt deep sympathy with that portion of the
inhabitants of these United States which is held in bondage,
and having no doubt that the happiness and interests, moral and
pecuniary, of both master and slave, and our whole community,
would be greatly promoted if the inestimable right to liberty
was extended equally to all, we contemplate with extreme regret
that the District of Columbia, over which you possess entire
control, is acknowledged to be one of the greatest marts for
the traffic in the persons of human beings in the known world,
notwithstanding the principles of the constitution declare that
all men have an unalienable right to the blessing of liberty.
We therefore earnestly desire that you will enact such laws as
will secure the right of freedom to every human being residing
within the constitutional jurisdiction of Congress, and prohibit
every species of traffic in the persons of men, which in as
inconsistent in principle and inhuman in practice as the foreign
slave trade."

This was the petition. It was in favor of emancipation in the District, and prayed the suppression of the slave trade in the District; and neither of these objects had any relation to emancipation or the slave trade, in the States. Mr. Preston, the colleague of Mr. Calhoun, gave his reasons for voting to reject the prayer of the petition, having failed in his first object to reject the petition itself: and Mr. Davis, of Massachusetts, repulsed the inferences and assumptions of Mr. Calhoun in consequence of the vote to receive the petition. He denied the justice of any suggestion that it portended mischief to the South, to the constitution, or to the Union; or that it was to make the District the headquarters of abolitionists, and the stepping-stone and entering wedge to the attack of slavery in the States: and said:

"Neither the petition on which the debate had arisen, nor
any other that he had seen, proposed directly or indirectly
to disturb the Union, unless the abolition of slavery in
this District, or the suppression or regulation of the slave
trade within it, would have that effect. For himself, Mr. D.
believed no purpose could be further than this from the minds
of the petitioners. He could not determine what thoughts or
motives might be in the minds of men, but he judged by what
was revealed; and he could not persuade himself that these
petitioners were not attached to the Union and that they had
(as had been suggested) any ulterior purpose of making this
District the headquarters of future operation--the stronghold
of anti-slavery--the stepping-stone to an attack upon the
constitutional rights of the South. He was obliged to repudiate
these inferences as unjust, for he had seen no proof to sustain
them in any of the petitions that had come here. The petitioners
entertained opinions coincident with their fellow-citizens as
to the power of Congress to legislate in regard to slavery in
this District; and being desirous that slavery should cease
here, if it could be abolished upon just principles; and, if
not, that the traffic carried on here from other quarters should
be suppressed or regulated, they came here to ask Congress
to investigate the matter. This was all; and he could see
no evidence in it of a clandestine purpose to disregard the
constitution or to disturb the Union."

The vote was almost unanimous on Mr. Buchanan's motion--34 to 6; and those six against it, not because they were in favor of granting the prayer of the memorialists, but because they believed that the petition ought to be referred to a committee, reported upon, and then rejected--which was the ancient mode of treating such petitions; and also the mode in which they were now treated in the House of Representatives. The vote was:

"Yeas--Messrs. Benton, Black, Brown, Buchanan, Clay, Crittenden,
Cuthbert, Ewing of Illinois, Ewing of Ohio, Goldsborough,
Grundy, Hill, Hubbard, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Leigh,
Linn, McKean, Moore, Nicholas, Niles, Porter, Preston, Robbins,
Robinson, Ruggles, Shepley, Tallmadge, Tipton, Tomlinson,
Walker, Wall, White, Wright--34.

"Nays--Messrs. Davis, Hendricks, Knight, Prentiss, Swift,
Webster--6."

After this decision, Mr. Webster gave notice that he had in hand several similar petitions, which he had forborne to present till this one from Pennsylvania should be disposed of; and that now he should, on an early occasion, present them, and move to dispose of them in the way in which it had been his opinion from the first that all such petitions should have been treated; that is, referred to a committee for consideration and inquiry.

The action of the House of Representatives will now be seen on the subject of these petitions; for duplicates of the same generally went to that body; and there, under the lead of a South Carolina member, and with large majorities of the House, they were disposed of very differently from the way that Mr. Calhoun demanded in the Senate, and in the way that he deemed so fatal to the slaveholding States. Mr. Henry L. Pinckney, of the Charleston district, moved that it be--

"_Resolved_, That all the memorials which have been offered,
or may hereafter be presented to this House, praying for the
abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia; and also the
resolutions offered by an honorable member from Maine (Mr.
Jarvis), with the amendment thereto proposed by an honorable
member from Virginia (Mr. Wise), together with every other
paper or proposition that may be submitted in relation to the
subject, be referred to a select committee, with instructions to
report: that Congress possesses no constitutional authority to
interfere in any way with the institution of slavery in any of
the States of this confederacy: and that in the opinion of this
House, Congress ought not to interfere, in any way, with slavery
in the District of Columbia, because it would be a violation
of the public faith, unwise, impolitic, and dangerous to the
Union. Assigning such reasons for these conclusions, as, in the
judgment of the committee, may be best calculated to enlighten
the public mind, to allay excitement, to repress agitation, to
secure and maintain the just rights of the slave-holding States,
and of the people of this District, and to restore harmony and
tranquillity amongst the various sections of this Union."

On putting the question the motion was divided, so as to have a separate vote on the different propositions of the resolve; and each was carried by large, and some by nearly unanimous majorities. On the first division, To refer all the memorials to a select committee, the vote was 174 to 48. On the second division, That Congress possesses no constitutional authority to interfere, in any way, with the institution of slavery in any of the States, the vote was 201 to 7--the seven negatives being Mr. John Quincy Adams, Mr. Harmer Denny of Pennsylvania, Mr. William Jackson, Mr. Horace Everett of Vermont, Mr. Rice Garland of Louisiana, Mr. Thomas Glascock of Georgia, Mr. William Jackson, Mr. John Robertson of Virginia; and they, because opposed to voting on such a proposition, deemed gratuitous and intermeddling. On the third division, of the resolve, That Congress ought not to interfere in any way with slavery in the District of Columbia, the vote stood 163 to 47. And on the fourth division, giving as reasons for such non-interference, Because it would be a violation of the public faith, unwise, impolitic, and dangerous to the Union, the vote was, 127 to 75. On the last division, To assign reasons for this report, the vote stood 167 to 6. So the committee was ordered, and consisted of Mr. Pinckney, Mr. Hamer of Ohio, Mr. Pierce of New Hampshire, Mr. Hardin of Kentucky, Mr. Jarvis of Maine, Mr. Owens of Georgia, Mr. Muhlenberg of Pennsylvania, Mr. Dromgoole of Virginia, and Mr. Turrill of New-York. The committee reported, and digested their report into two resolutions, _first_, That Congress possesses no constitutional authority to interfere, in any way, with the institution of slavery in any State of this confederacy. _Secondly_, That Congress ought not to interfere in any way with slavery in the District of Columbia. And, "for the purpose of arresting agitation, and restoring tranquillity to the public mind," they recommended the adoption of this resolve: "That all petitions, memorials, resolutions, propositions, or papers relating in any way to the subject of slavery, or the abolition of slavery, shall, without either being printed or referred, be laid upon the table; and that no further action whatever be had upon them." All these resolutions were adopted; and the latter one by a vote of 117 to 68; so that the House came to the same course which the Senate had taken in relation to these memorials. Mr. Adams, whose votes, taken by themselves, might present him as acting with the abolitionists, was entirely opposed to their objects, and was governed by a sense of what appeared to him to be the right of petition, and also the most effectual way of putting an end to an agitation which he sincerely deprecated. And on this point it is right that he should be heard for himself, as speaking for himself when Mr. Pinckney's motion was before the House. He then said:

"But, sir, not being in favor of the object of the petitions,
I then gave notice to the House and to the country, that upon
the supposition that these petitions had been transmitted to me
under the expectation that I should present them, I felt it my
duty to say, I should not support them. And, sir, the reason
which I gave at that time for declining to support them was
precisely the same reason which the gentleman from Virginia
now gives for reconsidering this motion--namely, to keep the
discussion of the subject out of the House. I said, sir, that
I believed this discussion would be altogether unprofitable to
the House and to the country; but, in deference to the sacred
right of petition, I moved that these fifteen petitions, all
of which were numerously signed, should be referred to the
Committee on the District of Colombia, at the head of which
was, at that time, a distinguished citizen of Virginia now, I
regret to say--and the whole country has occasion to regret--no
more. These petitions were thus referred, and, after a short
period of time, the chairman of the Committee on the District
of Columbia made a report to this House, which report was read,
and unanimously accepted; and nothing more has been heard of
these petitions from that day to this. In taking the course I
then took, I was not sustained by the unanimous voice of my own
constituents; there were many among them, persons as respectable
and as entitled to consideration as any others, who disapproved
of the course I pursued on that occasion.

"Attempts were made within the district I then represented
to get up meetings of the people to instruct me to pursue
a different course, or to multiply petitions of the same
character. These efforts were continued during the whole of that
long session of Congress; but I am gratified to add, without any
other result than that, from one single town of the district
which I had the honor to represent, a solitary petition was
forwarded before the close of the session, with a request that
I would present it to the House. Sir, I did present it, and it
was referred to the same Committee on the District of Columbia,
and I believe nothing more has been heard of it since. From
the experience of this session, I was perfectly satisfied
that the true and only method of keeping this subject out of
discussion was, to take that course; to refer all petitions of
this kind to the Committee on the District of Columbia, or some
other committee of the House, to receive their report, and to
accept it unanimously. This does equal justice to all parties
in the country; it avoids the discussion of this agitating
question on the one hand, and, on the other, it pays a due
respect to the right of the constituent to petition. Two years
afterwards, similar petitions were presented, and at that time
an effort made, without success, to do that which has now been
done successfully in one instance. An effort was made to lay
these petitions on the table; the House did not accede to the
proposition: they referred the petitions as they had been before
referred, and with the same result. For, from the moment that
these petitions are referred to the Committee on the District of
Columbia, they go to the family vault 'of all the Capulets,' and
you will never hear of them afterwards.

"At the first session of the last Congress, a gentleman from
the State of New-York, a distinguished member of this House,
now no longer here, which I regret to say, although I do not
doubt that his place is well supplied, presented one or more
petitions to this effect, and delivered a long and eloquent
speech of two hours in support of them. And what was the
result? He was not answered: not a word was said, but the vote
of the House was taken; the petitions were referred to the
Committees on the District, and we have heard nothing more of
them since. At the same session, or probably at the very last
session, a distinguished member of this House, from the State
of Connecticut, presented one or more petitions to the same
effect, and declared in his place that he himself concurred in
all the opinions expressed. Did this declaration light up the
flame of discord in this House? Sir, he was heard with patience
and complacency. He moved the reference of the petitions to the
Committee on the District of Columbia, and there they went to
sleep the sleep of death. Mr. Adams, speaking from recollection,
was [the reporter is requested by him to state] mistaken with
respect to the reference of the petitions presented at the last
session of Congress to the committee. They were then for the
first time laid on the table, as was the motion to print one of
them. At the preceding session of the last Congress, as at all
former times, all such petitions had been referred to committees
and printed when so desired. Why not adopt the same course
now? Here is a petition which has been already referred to the
Committee on the District of Columbia. Leave it there, and, my
word for it, sir, you will have just such a result as has taken
place time after time before. Your Committee on the District
certainly is not an abolition committee. You will have a fit,
proper, and able report from them; the House, _sub silentio_,
will adopt it, and you will hear no more about it. But if you
are to reconsider the vote, and to lay these petitions on the
table; if you come to the resolution that this House will not
receive any more petitions, what will be the consequence? In a
large portion of this country every individual member who votes
with you will be left at home at the next election, and some one
will be sent who is not prepared to lay these petitions on the
table."

There was certainly reason in what Mr. Adams proposed, and encouragement to adopt his course, from the good effect which had already attended it in other cases; and from the further good effect which he affirmed, that, in taking that course, the committee and the House would have come to the same conclusion by a unanimous, instead of a divided vote, as at present. His course was also conformable to that of the earliest action of Congress upon the subject. It was in the session of Congress of 1789-'90--being the first under the constitution--that the two questions of abolishing the foreign slave trade, and of providing for domestic emancipation, came before it; and then, as in the case of the Caln Memorial, from the Religious Society of Friends, there was discussion as to the mode of acting upon it--which ended in referring the memorial to a special committee, without instructions. That committee, a majority being from the non-slaveholding States, reported against the memorial on both points; and on the question of emancipation in the States, the resolve which the committee recommended (after having been slightly altered in phraseology), read thus: "_That Congress have no authority to interfere in the emancipation of slaves, or in the treatment of them within any of the States; it remaining with the several States to provide any regulations therein which humanity and true policy may require._" And under this resolve, and this treatment of the subject, the slavery question was then quieted; and remained so until revived in our own time. In the discussion which then took place Mr. Madison was entirely in favor of sending the petition to a committee; and thought the only way to get up an agitation in the country, would be by opposing that course. He said:

"The question of sending the petition to a committee was no
otherwise important than as gentlemen made it so by their
serious opposition. Had they permitted the commitment of the
memorial, as a matter of course, no notice would have been taken
of it out of doors: it could never have been blown up into a
decision of the question respecting the discouragement of the
African slave trade, nor alarm the owners with an apprehension
that the general government were about to abolish slavery
in all the States. Such things are not contemplated by any
gentleman, but they excite alarm by their extended objections
to committing the memorials. The debate has taken a serious
turn; and it will be owing to this alone if an alarm is created:
for, had the memorial been treated in the usual way, it would
have been considered, as a matter of course; and a report might
have been made so as to give general satisfaction. If there was
the slightest tendency by the commitment to break in upon the
constitution, he would object to it: but he did not see upon
what ground such an event could be apprehended. The petition did
not contemplate even a breach of the constitution: it prayed, in
general terms, for the interference of Congress so far as they
were constitutionally authorized."

This chapter opens and concludes with the words of Mr. Madison. It is beautiful to behold the wise, just, and consistent course of that virtuous and patriotic man--the same from the beginning to the ending of his life; and always in harmony with the sanctity of the laws, the honor and interests of his country, and the peace of his fellow-citizens. May his example not be lost upon us. This chapter has been copious on the subject of slavery. It relates to a period when a new point of departure was taken on the slave question; when the question was carried into Congress with avowed alternatives of dissolving the Union; and conducted in a way to show that dissolution was an object to be attained, not prevented; and this being the starting point of the slavery agitation which has since menaced the Union, it is right that every citizen should have a clear view of its origin, progress, and design. From the beginning of the Missouri controversy up to the year 1835, the author of this View looked to the North as the point of danger from the slavery agitation: since that time he has looked to the South for that danger, as Mr. Madison did two years earlier. Equally opposed to it in either quarter, he has opposed it in both.