"That the taxing power is of vital importance; that it is essential to the existence of Government; that the relinquishment of such power is never to be assumed;" And again, in the case of Dobbins vs. Commissioners of Erie County, 16 Peters, 447, they say: "Taxation is a sacred right, essential to the existence of Government-an incident of sovereignty. The right of legis. lation is coextensive with the incident, to attach it upon all persons and property within the jurisdiction of the State." Now, I call upon Senators to remark, that this sacred right, said to be essential to the very existence of Government, is abridged in the bill now before us. For myself, I do not doubt the power of Congress to fasten this restriction upon the Territory, and afterwards upon the State, as has been always done; but I am at a loss to see on what grounds this can be placed, which will not also support the prohibition of slavery. The former is an unquestionable infringement of sovereignty, as declared by our Supreme Court, far more than can be asserted of the latter. I am unwilling to admit, sir, that the prohibition of Slavery in the Territories is, in any just sense, an infringement of the local sovereignty. Slavery is an infraction of the immutable law of nature, and, as such, cannot be considered a natural incident to any sovereignty, eopecially in a country which has solemnly declared, in its Declaration of Independence, the inalienable right of all men to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In an age of civilization, and in a land of rights, Slavery may still be tolerated in fact; but its prohibition, within a municipal jurisdiction, by the Government thereof, as by one of the States of the Union, cannot be considered an infraction of natural rights; nor can its prohibition by Congress in the Territories be regarded as an infringement of the local sovereignty, founded as it must be on natural rights. But another argument is pressed, most fallacious in its character. It is asserted that, inasmuch as the Territories were acquired by the common treasure, they are the common property of the whole Union; and, therefore, no citizen can be prevented from moving into them with his slaves, without an infringement of the equal rights and privileges which belong to him as a citizen, of the United States. But it is admitted, that the people of this very Territory, when organized as a State, may exclude slaves, and in this way abridge an asserted right founded on the common property in the Territory. Now, if this can be done by the few thousand settlers who constitute the State government, the whole argument founded on the acquisition of the Territories by a common treasure, seems futile and evanescent. But this argument proceeds on an assumption which cannot stand. It assumes that Slavery is a national institution, and that property in slaves is recognized by the Constitution of the United States. Nothing can be more false. By the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, and also by the principles of the common law, Slavery is a local municipal institution, which derives its support exclusively from local municipal laws, and beyond the sphere of these laws it ceases to exist, except so far as it may be preserved by the clause for the rendition of fugitives from labor. MADISON thought it wrong to admit into the Constitution the idea that there can be property in man; and I rejoice to believe that no such idea can be found there. The Constitution regards slaves always as persons," with the rights of "persons"- -never as property. When it is said, therefore, that every citizen may enter the national domain with his property, it does not follow, by any rule of logic, or of law, that he may carry his slaves. On the contrary, he can only carry that property which is admitted to be such by the universal law of nature, written by God's own finger on the heart of man. times classed with the domestic relations. Now, Again: The relation of master and slave is somewhile it is unquestionably among the powers of any State, within its own jurisdiction, to change the existing relation of husband and wife, and to establish polygamy, I presume no person would contend that a polygamous husband, resident in one of the States, would be entitled to enter the national territory with his harem-his property if you please— and there claim immunity. Clearly, when he passes the bounds of that local jurisdiction, which sanctions polygamy, the peculiar domestic relation would cease; and it is precisely the same with Slavery. Sir, I dismiss these considerations. The prohibition of Slavery in the Territory of Nebraska stands on foundations of adamant, upheld by the early policy of the Fathers, by constant precedent and time-honored compact. It is now in your pow er to overturn it; you may remove the sacred land-mark; and open the whole vast domain to Slavery. To you is committed this high prerogative. Our fathers, on the eve of the Revolution, set forth in burning words, among their grievances, that George III, "in order to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, had prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce." Sir, like the English monarch, you may now prostitute your power to this same purpose. But you cannot escape the judgment of the world, nor the doom of history. It will be in vain that, while doing this thing, you plead, in apology, the principle of self-government which you profess to recognize in the Territories. Sir, this very principle, when truly administered, secures equal rights to all, without distinction of color or race, and makes Slavery impossible. By no rule of justice, and by no sublety of political metaphysics, can the right to hold a fellow-man in bondage be regarded as essential to self-government. The inconsistency is too flagrant. It is apparent on the bare statement. It is like saying two and two make three. In the name of Liberty you open the door to Slavery. With professions of equal rights on the lips, you trample on the rights of human nature. With a kiss upon the brow of that fair Territory, you betray it to wretchedness and shame. Well did the patriot soul exclaim, in bitter words, wrung out by bitter experience: "Oh, Liberty, what crimes are done in thy name!" In vain, Sir, you will plead that this measure proceeds from the North, as has been suggested by the Senator from Kentucky, [Mr. DIXON.] Even if this were true, it would be no apology. But, precipitated as this bill has been upon the Senate, at a moment of general calm, and in the absence of any controlling exigency, and then hurried to a vote in advance of the public voice, as if fearful of arrest, it cannot be justly called the offspring of any popular sentiment. In this respect it differs widely from the Missouri prohibition, which, after solemn debate, extending through two sessions of Congress, and ample discussion before the people, was adopted. Certainly there is, as yet, no evidence that this measure, though supported by Northern men, proceeds from that Northern sentiment which is to be found strong and fresh in the schools, the churches, and homes of the people. Populi omnes AD AQUILONEM positi Libertatem quandem spirant. And could this scheme be now submitted to the awakened millions whose souls have been truly ripened under Northern skies, it would be branded at once with an indignant and undying condemnation. But the race of men, "white slaves of the North,' described and despised by a southern statesman, is not yet extinct there, sir. It is one of the melancholy tokens of the power of slavery, under our political system, and especially through the operations of the National Government, that it loosens and destroys the character of Northern men, even at a distance-like the black magnetic mountain in the Arabian story, under whose irresistible attraction the iron bolts, which held together the strong timbers of a stately ship, were drawn out, till the whole fell apart, and became a disjointed wreck. Alas! too often those principles, which give consistency, individuality, and form to the Northern character, which render it staunch, strong, and seaworthy, which bind it together as with iron, are drawn out, one by one. like the bolts of the ill-fated vessel, and from the miserable, loosened fragments is formed that human anomaly —a Northern man with Southern principles. Sir-No such man can speak for the North. [Here there was an interruption of prolonged applause in the galleries.] The PRESIDENT, (Mr. STUART in the chair.) The Chair will be obliged to order the galleries to be cleared, if order is not preserved. No applause will be allowed. Several VOICES. Let them be cleared now. MR. SUMNER. Mr. President, 1 advance now to considerations of a more general character, to which I ask your best attention. Sir, this bill is proposed as a measure of peace. In this way you vainly think to withdraw the subject of slavery from National politics. This is a mistake. Peace depends on mutual confidence. It can never rest secure on broken faith and injustice. And, sir, permit me to say, frankly, sincerely, and earnestly, that the subject of Slavery can never be withdrawn from the National politics, until we return once more to the original policy of our fathers, at the first organization of the Government, under Washington, when the National ensign nowhere on the National territory covered a single slave. Slavery, which our fathers branded as an "evil," a "curse," an" enormity," a " nefarious institution," is condemned at the North by the strongest convictions of the reason and the best sentiments of the heart. It is the only subject within the field of National politics which excites any real interest. The old matters which have divided the minds of men have lost their importance. One by one they have disappeared, leaving the ground to be occupied by a question grander far. The Bank, Sub-Treasury, the Distribution of the Public Lands, are each and all obsolete issues. Even the Tariff is not a question on which opposite political parties are united in taking opposite sides. And now, instead of these superseded questions, which were filled for the most part with the odor of the dollar, the country is directly summoned to consider face to face a cause which is connected with all that is divine in religion, with all that is pure and noble in morals, with all that is truly practical and constitutional in politics. Unlike the other questions, it is not temporary or local in its character. It belongs to all times and to all countries. Though long kept in check, it now, by your introduction, confronts the people, demanding to be heard. To every man in the land it says, with clear, penetrating voice, "Are you for Freedom. or are you for Slavery ?" And every man in the land must answer this question when he votes. Pass this bill, and it will be in vain that you say the Slavery question is settled. Sir, nothing can be settled which is not right. Nothing can be settled which is adverse to Freedom. God, nature, and all the holy sentiments of the heart, repudiate any such false seeming settlement. Now, Sir, mark the clear line of our duty. And here let me speak for those with whom, in minority and defeat, I am proud to be associated the Independent Democrats, who espouse that Democracy which is transfigured in the Declaration of Independence and the injunctions of Christianity. The testimony which we bear against Slavery, as against all other wrong, is in different ways, according to our position. The Slavery which exists under other Governments, as in Russia or Turkey, or in other States of the Union, as in Virginia and Carolina, we can oppose only through the influence of litera ture, morals, and religion, without in any way invo king the political power. Nor is it proposed to act otherwise. But Slavery, where we are parties to it -where we are responsible for it-everywhere within our jurisdiction-must be opposed, not only by all the influence of literature, morals, and religion, but directly by every instrument of political power. In the States it is sustained by local laws; and although we may be compelled to share the shame which its presence inflicts upon the fair fame of the country, yet it receives no direct sanction at our hands. We are not responsible for it. The wrong is not at our own particular doors. It is not within our jurisdiction. But Slavery everywhere under the Constitution of the United States-everywhere within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Government— everywhere under the National Flag-is at our own particular doors, within the sphere of our own personal responsibility, and exists there in defiance of the original policy of our fathers, and of the true principles of the Constitution. It is a mistake to say, as is often charged, that we seek to interfere, through Congress, with Slavery in the States, or in any way to direct the legislation of Congress upon subjects not within its jurisdiction. Our political aims, as well as our political duties, are coextensive with our political responsibilities. And, since we at the North are responsible for Slavery wherever it exists under the jurisdiction of Congress, it is unpardonable in us not to exert every power we possess to enlist Congress against it. Such is our cause. To men of all parties and opinions, who wish well to the Republic, and would preserve its good name, it appeals. Alike to the Conservative and the Reformer, it appeals; for it stands on the truest Conservatism and the truest Reform. In seeking the reform of existing evils, we seek also the conservation of the principles of our fathers. The cause is not sectional. Oh, no! sir, it is not sectional; for it simply aims to establish under the National Government those great principles of Justice and Humanity, which are broad and universal as man. As well might it be said that JEFFERSON, FRANKLIN, and WASHINGTON, were sectional. It is not aggressive; for it does not seek in any way to interfere, through Congress, with Slavery in the States. It is not contrary to the Constitution; for it recognizes this paramount law, and in the administration of the Government invokes the spirit of its founders. Sir, it is not hos SPEECH OF THE HON. CHARLES SUMNER. 119 tile to the quiet of the country; for it proposes the | Senator from North Carolina [Mr. BADGER] to press only course by which agitation can be allayed and quiet be permanently established. it, even as vehemently as he did; but it sounded less natural when it came, though in more moderate It is not uncommon to hear persons declare that phrase, from my distinguished friend and colleague they are against Slavery, and are willing to unite in from Massachusetts, [Mr. EVERETT.] The past any practical efforts to make this opposition felt. furnishes a controlling example by which its true At the same time, they pharisaically visit with con- character may be determined. Do not forget, sir, demnation, with reproach or contempt, the earnest that the efforts of William Wilberforce encountered souls who for years have striven in this struggle. this precise objection, and that the condition of the To such I would say-could I reach them now with kidnapped Slave was then vindicated, in language my voice-if you are sincere in what you declare; not unlike that of the Senator from North Carolina, if your words are not merely lip service; if in your by no less a person than the Duke of Clarence, of hearts you are entirely willing to join in any practical the royal family of Great Britain. In what was efforts against Slavery, then, by your lives, by your called his maiden speech, on May 3d, 1792, and conversation, by your influence, by your votes-dis-preserved in the Parliamentary Debates, he said, regarding "the ancient forms of party strife"-seek"The negroes were not treated in the manner which to carry the principles of Freedom into the National had so much agitated the public mind. He had Government, wherever its jurisdiction is acknowl- been an attentive observer of their state, and had no edged, and its power can be felt. Thus, without any doubt that he could bring forward proofs to convince interference with the States, which are beyond this their lordships that their state was far from being jurisdiction, may you help to erase the blot of Sla- miserable; on the contrary, that when the various very from our National brow. ranks of society were considered, they were comparatively in a state of humble happiness," And only the next year this same royal prince, in debate in the House of Lords, asserted that the promoters of the abolition of the slave-trade were 'either fanatics or hypocrites," and in one of these classes he declared that he ranked Wilberforce. Mark now the end. After years of weary effort, the slave trade was finally abolished; and at last, in 1833, the early vindicator of even this enormity, the maligner of a name hallowed among men, was brought to give his royal assent, as William IV., king of Great Britain, to the immortal act of Parliament, greater far than any victory of war, by which Slavery was abolished throughout the British dominions. Sir, time und the universal conscience have vindicated the labors of Wilberforce. The movement against American Slavery, auspicated by the august names of Washington, Franklin, and Jefferson, can calmly await a similar judgment. Do this and you will most truly promote the harmony which you so much desire. You will establish tranquillity throughout the country. Then, at last, Sir, the Slavery question will be settled. Banished from its usurped foothold under the National Government, Slavery will no longer enter, with distracting force, into the national politics-making and unmaking laws, making and unmaking Presidents. Confined to the States, where it was left by the Constitution, it will take its place as a local institution, if, alas! continue it must! for which we are in no sense responsible, and against which we cannot exert any political power. We shall be relieved from our present painful and irritating connection with it. The existing antagonism between the North and the South will be softened; crimination and recrimination will cease; the wishes of the Fathers will be fulfilled, and this great evil be left to the kindly influences of morals and religion, and the great laws of social economy. But it is suggested that, in this movement, there I am not blind to the adverse signs. But this I is danger to the Union. In this solicitude I can not see clearly. Amid all seeming discouragements share. As a lover of concord and a jealous partisan the great omens are with us. Art, literature, poetry, of all things that make for peace, I am always glad religion-everything which elevates man-all are on to express my attachment to the Union; but I beour side. The plow, the steam engine, the railroad,lieve that this bond will be most truly preserved and the telegraph, the book, every human improvement, every generous word anywhere, every true pulsation of every heart which is not a mere muscle, and nothing else, gives new encouragement to the warfare with Slavery. The discussion will proceed. The devices of party can no longer stave it off. The subterfuges of the politician cannot escape it. The tricks of the office-seeker cannot dodge it. Whereever an election occurs, there this question will arise. Wherever men come together to speak of public affairs, there again it will be. No political Joshua now, with miraculous power, can stop the sun in his course through the heavens. It is even now rejoicing, like a strong man, to run its race, and will yet send its beams into the most distant plantations-aye, sir, and melt the chains of every most beneficently extended (for I shrink from no expansion where Freedom leads the way) by firmly upholding those principles of Liberty and Justice which were made its early corner-stones. The true danger to this Union proceeds, not from any abandonment of the "peculiar institution" of the South, but from the abandonment of the spirit in which the Union was formed; not from any warfare, within the limits of the Constitution, upon Slavery; but from warfare, like that waged by this very bill, upon Freedom. The Union is most precious; but more precious far are that "general welfare," "domestic tranquillity," and those "blessings of Liberty,' which it was established to secure; all which are now wantonly endangered. Not that I love the Union less, but Freedom more, do I now, in pleadslave. ing this great cause, insist that Freedom, at all hazBut this movement-or agitation, as it is reproach-ards, shall be preserved. fully called-is boldly pronounced injurious to the very object desired. Now, without entering into details which neither time nor the occasion justifies, let me say that this objection belongs to those common-places, which have been arrayed against every beneficent movement in the world's history-against even knowledge itself-against the abolition of the slave trade. Perhaps it was not unnatural for the One word more, and I have done. The great master, Shakspeare, who, with all-seeing mortal eye, observed mankind, and with immortal pen depicted the manners as they rise, has presented a scene which may be read with advantage by all who would plunge the South into tempestuous quarrel with the North. I refer to the well-known dialogue between Brutus and Cassius. Reading this remarkable pas sage, it is difficult not to see in Brutus our own | And the colloquy proceeding, each finally comes to North, and in Cassius the South: Cassius. Urge me no more; I shall forget myself; Have mind upon your health; tempt me no further. Brutus....... Hear me, for I will speak. Must I give way and room to your rash choler? Cassius. O ye gods! ye gods! must I endure all this? Brutus. All this? ay, more. Fret till your proud heart break; Go, show your slaves how choleric you are, And make your bondmen tremble. Must I budge? Cassius. Do not presume too much upon my love; I may do that I shall be sorry for. Brutus. You have done that you should be sorry for. There is no terror, Cassius, in your threats; For I am armed so strong in honesty, That they pass by me as the idle wind, Which I respect not. Cassius. A friend should bear his friend's infirmities; But Brutus makes mine greater than they are. Brutus. I do not, TILL YOU PRACTISE THEM ON ME. I do not like your faults. understand the other, appreciates his character and attitude, and the impetuous gallant Cassius exclaims, "Give me your hand;" to which Brutus replies, "And my heart too." Afterwards, with hand and heart united, on the field of Philippi they together upheld the liberties of Rome. The North and the South, sir, as I fondly trust, amidst all differences of opinion, will ever have a hand and a heart for each other; and, believing in the sure prevalence of Almighty Truth, I confidently look forward to the good time, when both will unite, according to the sentiments of the fathers and the true spirit of the Constitution, in declaring Freedom and not Slavery national, while Slavery and not Freedom shall be sectional. Then will be achieved that Union, contemplated at the beginning, against which the storms of faction and the assaults of foreign power shall beat in vain, as upon the Rock of Ages; and LIBERTY, seeking a firm foothold, WILL HAVE AT LAST WHEREON TO STAND AND MOVE THE WORLD. THE END. APPENDIX. THE VOTE IN THE SENATE. THE Bill to organize the Territories of NEBRASKA and KANSAS passed the Senate on the morning of March 4, 1854, the Senate having been in session all night. Its important provisions are as follows: I. Repeals the Missouri Compromise, as being inconsistent with the acts of 1850, commonly called the Compromise measures. II. Aliens are not allowed to vote in the Territory, as they have been in Bills for the organization of Territories, heretofore. III. The Governor and Judges are to be appointed by the President and Senate. IV. The Bill is declared not to revive the old French laws relating to Slavery. The vote on the final passage of the Bill in the Senate stood: Ayes, 37; Nays, 14; Absent, 10. New Hampshire-Moses Norris, Jared W. Williams. Maine-Hannibal Hamlin, Wm. Pitt Fessenden. Connecticut-Isaac Toucey. New Jersey John R. Thomson. Pennsylvania-Richard Broadhead, Jr. Illinois-Stephen A. Douglas, James Shields. [Total from the Free States, 14-all Dem.] Virginia-Jas. M. Mason, R M. T. Hunter. South Carolina-A. P. Butler, Josiah J. Evans. Alabama-Benj. Fitzpatrick, Clement C. Clay, Jr. Louisiana-John Slidell, J. P. Benjamin. Kentucky-Arch. Dixon, John B. Thompson. Tennessee James C. Jones. Massachusetts-CHARLES SUMNER. New York-William H. Seward, Hamilton Fish. Tennessee-John Bell. Texas-Sam. Houston. Total, 14;-7 Whigs (in Italics); 2 Free Soilers (small caps); 5 Democrats. ABSENT. Massachusetts-Edward Everett. Rhode Island-Philip Allen (absent, family sick). Maryland-James A. Pearce. Indiana-Jesse D. Bright (absent-sick). Missouri-D. R. Atchison, Henry S. Geyer. Arkansas-W. K. Sebastian, Robert W. Johnson. [Total from the Slave States, 23;-9 Whigs (in Italics); 14 Democrats.] Georgia Robert Toombs Florida-Steph. R. Mallory Total-5 Whigs, 5 Democrats. The Bill is now before the House of Representa tives. |