Payment for slaves : speech of Mr. J.R. Giddings, of Ohio, on the bill to pay the heirs of Antonio Pacheco for a slave sent west of the Mississippi with the Seminole Indians in 1838 ; made in the House of Representatives, Dec. 28, 1848, and Jan. 6, 1849

PAYMENT FOR SLAVES.

SPEECH OF MR. J. R. GIDDINGS, OF OHIO.

ON THE

r

BILL TO PAY THE HEIRS OF ANTONIO PACHECO FOR A SLAVE SENT WEST OF THE MISSIS-
SIPPI WITH THE SEMINOLE INDIANS IN 1818.

Made in the House of Representatives, Dec. 28, 1848, and Jan. 6, 1849.

WASHINGTON :

PRINTED BY BUELL & BLANCHARD.

1849.

Vi

V .

t

SPEECH.

Mr. Giddings said, he had not intended to par-
ticipate in this debate; but, from the favor with
which the bill had been regarded in Committee,
and the majority in favor of its engrossment, he
apprehended that gentlemen had not carefully
examined the facts of the case, nor did he think
they had fully considered the principles involved
in the passage of the bill. There are (said he)
certain great and fundamental truths which lie at
the foundation of our Government. We profess
to " hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men
are created equal;" yet the bill before us admits
one man to be the property of another ; that one
man may rightfully hold another subject to his
will, may scourge him into obedience, and compel
him to labor for the benefit of his master. "We
profess to believe that all men " are endowed by
their Creator with the unalienable right to the enjoy-
ment of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ;v
yet the bill before us admits the claimant to have
rightfully held the liberty and happiness of his
fellow-man at his entire disposal. Now, if we
pass this bill, our professions will be in direct
contradiction to our practice. If we really hold
to these doctrines, it is certain that we must op-
pose this bill ; and it is equally certain that if we
pass this bill, we shall, by such act, deny these
truths. We each of us deny these doctrines, or
we hold to them. We cannot do both. To say
that we hold to them, and at the same time sup-
port this bill, would be placing our professions in
direct contradiction to our actions. The incon-
sistency would be too obvious to deceive any one.
Tell me not that you hold to the undying truths
contained in our Declaration of Independence,
and at the same time sit here to estimate the
value, in dollars and cents, of the body and mind
of your fellow-man. Those who founded our Gov-
ernment declared their ulterior object. That ob-
ject was to " secure all men (residing within our ju-
risdiction) in the enjoyment of life, liberty, andthe pur-
suit of happinessP Are we to-day (said he) carry-
ing out these objects ? Here, sir, are two hun-
dred and thirty American statesmen legislating
for the benefit of slavery. There is no evading
this plain and obvious fact. No subterfuge can

hide it from the People. The powers of Govern-
ment were instituted by our patriotic fathers for
the express purpose of securing to all for whom
we legislate the blessings of liberty. We are
now sitting here to compensate the oppressor of
his fellow-man for his inability to continue his
power over the victim of his barbarous cupidity.
The members who vote for this bill will give un-
mistakable evidence of their approbation of sla-
very, and their willingness to sustain it.

Before I proceed further, I will give a synopsis
of the facts involved in the case. The claimant,
in 1835, residing in Florida, professed to own a
negro man named Lewis. This man is said to
have been very intelligent, speaking four lan-
guages, which he read and wrote with facility.
The master hired him to an officer of the United
States, to act as a guide to the troops under the
command of Major Dade, for which he was to re-
ceive twenty-five dollars per month. The duties
were dangerous, and the price was proportioned
to the danger. At the time these troops were mas-
sacred, this slave Lewis deserted to the enemy, or
was captured by them. He remained with the
Indians, acting with them in their depredations
against the white people, until 1837, when, Gen-
eral Jesup says, he was captured by a detachment of
troops under his command. An Indian chief, named
J umper, surrendered with Lewis, whom he claim-
ed as a slave, having, as he said, captured him at
the time of Dade's defeat. General Jesup declares
that he regarded him as a dangerous man ; that he
rvas supposed to have kept up a correspondence with
the enemy from the time he joined Major Dade until
the defeat of that officer ; that, to insure the public
safety, he ordered him sent West with the Indians ; be-
lieving that if left in the country he would be employed
against our troops. He was sent West ; and the
claimant now asks that we should pay him a thou-
sand dollars as the value of this man's body.

The Committee on Military Affairs were una-
ble to unite in a report upon the case. Five
slaveholders, representing slave property on this
floor, and constituting a majority of the commit?
tee, have reported a bill for the payment of this
amount to the claimant. Four Northern mem-

t'S.-^Af^

bers, representing freemen only, have made a mi-
nority report against the bill. This report, as I
think, is sustained by irrefutable arguments.

The majority of the committee assume the po-
sition that slaves are regarded by the Federal
Constitution as property, and that this Govern-
ment and the people of the free States are bound
to regard them as such, and to pay for them as
we "would for so many mules or oxen taken into
the public service. The minority deny this doc-
trine. They insist that the Federal Constitution
treats them as persons only, and that this Govern-
ment cannot constitutionally involve the people of
the free States in the guilt of sustaining slavery ;
that we have no constitutional powers to legislate
upon the relation of master and slave. There are
several other points on which the committee dif-
fer, some of which I intend to notice ; but I pro-
pose first to examine for a few moments that of
the constitutional power. It is due to myself and
to the country that I should call public attention
distinctly to the fact, that these questions are
forced upon us by Southern gentlemen, against
the wishes and remonstrance of every member of
the committee from the free States. Involving as
it does the great fundamental principles of our
Government, a distinguished member from the
North [Mr. Rockwell, of Connecticut] introduced
a resolution to close the debate in one hour from
the time we went into Committee.- I thought it
unbecoming Northern members to attempt thus
to stifle debate on so important a matter, forced
upon us by the South. I therefore called for the
ayes and noes on that resolution, and now hold
the floor by a sort of legislative fraud, having vot-
ed/or the engrossment of the bill with the sole
object of obtaining the floor.

Sir, at the formation of the Constitution, sla-
very was condemned in the severest language by
the delegates who framed that instrument. It is
true they had been regarded in England as prop-
erty. In 1749, Lord Hardwicke had decided that
trover lay for a slave in the British courts. That
was the last decision of the kind made in Eng-
land or in civilized Europe. One hundred years
have elapsed since that decision. Its doctrines
have been a thousand times discarded, contemned,
and overthrown, by the statesmen and jurists of
that nation ; but here, in an American Congress,
We now hear this barbarous doctrine revived.

In 1772, Lord Mansfield boldly assailed the doc-
trine laid down in this Hall to-day, and exhibited
its absurdity in one of the ablest opinions to be
found on record. From that period this doctrine
of property in man has found no supporters un-
der the Government Of England. With all our
refinement as a nation, with all our boasted ad-

herence to liberty, on this subject we are three-
quarters of a century behind our mother country.

When Sir Warren Hastings was on trial in the
House of Peers in 1787, Mr. Sheridan, speaking
on this subject, in his own peculiar and fervid el-
oquence, declared that " allegiance to that Power
which gives us the forms of men, commands us to
maintain the rights of men ; and never yet was
this truth dismissed from the human heart — never
in any time, in any age — never in any clime where
rude man ever had any social feelings — never
was this unextinguishable truth destroyed from
the heart of man, placed as it is in the core and
centre of it by his Maker, that man roas not made
the property of man?'' This was the language of
British statesmen sixty-two years since. To-day
we have before this branch of the American Con-
gress the report of a committee avowing that, un-
der this Federal Government, in the middle of the
nineteenth century, "man is the property of his
fellow-mortal?

These sentiments of the British statesmen and
jurists inspired the hearts of our American patri-
ots in 1776, when they declared it to be a " self-
evident TRUTH THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL."

When they framed our Constitution, they de-
clared their object was uto establish justice, and to
secure to themselves and their posterity the blessings
of liberty?'' This subject of holding property in
men did not escape their attention, nor have they
left us ignorant of their views in regard to it.
Mr. Madison, the father of the Constitution, has
left to us a clear and explicit account of their in-
tentions. He informs us, that on

"Wednesday, August 22, the Convention pro-
ceeded to consider the report of the Committee of
Detail, in relation to duties on exports, a capita-
tion tax, and a navigation act. The fourth section
reported was as follows :

" ' No tax or duty shall be laid by the Legisla-
ture on articles exported from any State, nor on
the migration nor importation of such persons as
the several States shall think proper to admit ;
nor shall such migration nor importation be pro-
hibited.'

" Mr. Gerry thought we had nothing to do with
the conduct of the States as to slavery, but we
ought to be careful not to give any sanction?'

Our people think, with Mr. Gerry, that c£ we
have nothing to do mith slavery in the States?' We
are determined that we will not be involved in its
guilt. With Mr. Gerry, we intend " to be careful
to give it no sanction?' No, sir; we will not sanc-
tion your slavery by paying our money for the
bodies of slaves. This is the doctrine which we
hold, and which we expect to maintain ; yet the
members of this body are now engaged in legislat-
ing upon the price of human flesh. If we pass
this bill, we shall give our most solemn sanction
to that institutoin which Gerry and his compa-

o

triots detested. Will the members from Penn-
sylvania, the successors of Franklin and Wilson,
lend their sanction to slavery, by voting the mo-
neys of the People to pay for slaves ?

But Mr. Madison tells us that " Mr. Sherman
(of Connecticut) was opposed to any tax on slaves,
as making the matter worse, because it implied they
were property P

I understand that some gentlemen from the
North admit that slaves are property. Mr. Sher-
man and the framers of the Constitution would
do no act by which it could be implied that they
were property.

Mr. Madison also participated in the discussion
himself; and, as he informs us, :; declared that

HE THOUGHT IT WRONG TO ADMIT THAT THERE

could be property in men." And the report
of the committee was so amended as to exclude
that idea.

In that assemblage of illustrious statesmen, no
man expressed his dissent from these doctrines of
Gerry, of Sherman, and of Madison. These
doctrines are: 1. That we " should have nothing
to do with slavery, but ought to be careful not to give
it any sanctionP 2. That " we should do no act by
which it can be implied that there can be property in
men.'1'' 3. "That it would be wrong for us to

ADMIT THAT THERE CAN BE PROPERTY IN MEN.;;

Such were the views of those who framed the
Constitution. They intended to express their
views in such language as to be understood. Will
this House stand by them ?

The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr.
Burt] declared that he would leave us no room to
escape this issue — '•'-no loophole at which to get
out ;" that we must say by our votes either that
there is property in men under the Federal Con-
stitution, or that there is not. I am most happy
to meet the gentleman on that point, and am pre-
pared to submit the question to those who framed
that instrument, to Mr. Madison. His decision
is left on record. The only question is : Have
the Representatives of the people here the firm-
ness and the independence to maintain the Con-
stitution ? There stands the record of their in-
tentions. " He who runs may read " No man
can fail to understand the intentions of those who
framed our political compact. Those intentions
constitute the very spirit of the Constitution,
which we are sworn to support. The people of
the free States are aware of the objects and inten-
tions of those patriots. They know their rights
under the Constitution; they hold the indis-
putable right to be free and entirely exempt
from the corroding stain of slavery. So perfectly
were these principles understood in the early
days of the Republic, that after the war of the

Revolution no man asked pay for his slaves that
were taken from him or killed in the public
service. In the year 1830, the Register of
the Treasury declared that no instance of the
payment for slaves during the Revolution was to
be found on record. No, sir ; Madison and Jef-
ferson, and their cotemporaries, were then living.
They well understood the principles on which
the Union had been formed. They respected
the rights of the free as well as of the slave
States, and no man then attempted to involve the
people of the North in the support of slavery. I
believe the first attempt to make this Government
pay for slaves was in 1816. This was twenty-
seven years after the adoption of the Constitution,
and forty-two years after the declaration of Amer-
ican independence. It is an important historical
fact, that shows clearly the opinions then enter-
tained on this subject.

After the close of the late war with England,
a bill was pending in this House, providing for
the payment of property lost or destroyed during
that war. When the section providing for the
payment of horses, carts, &c, impressed into pub-
lic service and destroyed, Mr. Maryant, from
South Carolina, moved to amend the bill so as to
embrace slaves. The motion was opposed by Mr.
Yancy and Mr. Robertson, and was negatived by
a large majority. (See National Intelligencer,
December 28, 1816.) This was a motion so to
amend this bill as to pay for slaves if killed in the
public service, when they had been impressed. I
have heard Northern members express the opinion,
pending this bill, that we ought to pay for slaves,
if lost, when they were impressed into the service.
Sir, such was not the case thirty-five years since.
Our predecessors then spurned the proposition.
Where now is the feeling, the spirit, which ani-
mated them ? We have no record of the speeches,
but every member will see that the case proposed
was the strongest case that could be imagined. It
was where a slave was taken against the will of
the master, and pressed into the service, and killed
by the enemy. Yet they rejected the proposition
by a large majority. The claim before us is of
incomparably less force. Here the master hired
the slave, at a high price, to go with the troops
as a guide, and of course took upon himself all
risks.

The next case was that of D'Auterive. He
had claims against the United States for wood and
other necessaries furnished the army, and for the
loss of time and the expense of nursing a slave
who was wounded in the service of Government
at New Orleans. This case is more interesting
from the fact, that there was at that time an at-
tempt, as on the present occasion, to break down

that well-known principle in our Constitution,
that " slaves are persons, and not property?''

The Committee on Claims at that time (182S)
was composed of four Northern and three South-
ern men. At its head was an honorable Southern
man, [Lewis Williams, of North Carolina,] who
served his country longer in this body than any
other that ever sat in this hall. For more I han a
quarter of a century he was a distinguished mem-
ber of this House. There are few, very few, now
present, that had the pleasure of serving with
him ; but his cotemporaries can attest to his great
abilities and deserved influence. That committee
reported in favor of allowing compensation for
the articles furnished to the army, but said, ex-
pressly, that " slaves not being property, they could
not allow the master any compensation for his loss."
This was the unanimous report — Mr. Williams
of North Carolina, Mr. McCoy of Virginia, and
Mr. Owen of Alabama, uDiting in the report.
Mr. Williams had been contemporaneous with
Madison and Jefferson, and he did not hesitate to
avow the doctrines of the Constitution, and to
maintain them. Here is the record of his opinion
and of the views of his associates. When the bill
came up in Committee of the Whole, certain
Southern gentlemen suddenly became excited,
worked themselves into a passion, threatened a
dissolution of the Union, and all that sort of thing.
In short, they manifested that spirit of dictation
and intimidation which we have so often witnessed
on more recent occasions. They made a strenu-
ous effort to reverse the decision of the Committee
on Claims ; but, after some two weeks' discussion,
gave it up, laid the subject on the table, and there
the matter ended.

This discussion was thirty-nine years subse-
quent to the adoption of the Constitution, and
more than fifty from the Declaration of Independ-
ence. The principle that slaves were persons, and
not property, was reaffirmed, upon full discussion,
without the light which we possess on the subject.
The Madison Papers were not then published.
The views of Gerry and Sherman and Madison,
in the Convention, and the action of that body in
relation to this matter, were unknown to them.
Should we now reverse that decision, and overturn
the practice, we shall sin against greater light
than they possessed.

The next and only remaining instance in which
the question of appropriating the treasure of the
nation to pay for slaves was in 1843. " A bill for
the relief of the people of West Florida," intended
to provide for the payment of slaves taken by the
army of General Jackson from the inhabitants of
that Territory, in 1814, came up for discussion.
The slaves hai been taken, against the consent of

their owners, by the military power of the nation'
I think there were about ninety, taken from dif-
ferent individuals. The proposition was distinct
in its character. The object of the bill was to
pay for human flesh. I myself opened the debate,
and stated, as the principal grounds of my opposi-
tion to it, that slaves were not regarded as proper-
ty under the Federal Constitution. My venera-
ble and lamented friend, now no more. (John
Gtuincy Adams,) sustained my positions. Several
Southern gentlemen spoke in favor of the bill.
The Journal is now before me, and shows the
bill to have been rejected, by a vote of one hundred
and thirteen to thirty-six. This was done by a Whig
Congress. Not one of that party from the free
States voted for the bill.

I have now given a history of our legislation on
this subject. There was a bill passed this body,
" sub silentio? on one of those days when there
is, by the rules of the House, no discussion, by
which payment was made for a slave. My friend
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Dickey] has stated the
facts in regard to it. I knew that such a bill was
pending, and so did Mr. Adams ; and we had mu-
tually agreed to oppose its passage ; but it slipped
through unnoticed, and, therefore, constitutes no
precedent.

In 1843, a bill passed this body to pay over
moneys obtained by the Government from Great
Britain, and held in trust by us, to be paid to the
owners of slaves lost on board the " Comet and
Encomium." This bill also passed the Senate,
and became a law. At the last session we passed
two bills to pay over moneys held in trust for the
same purpose. These cases were not to take the
treasure of the people of the free States to pay for
slaves, but to pay over money that did not belong
to us, but which we held for the use of those who
claimed it. But from the dawn of the Revolution
to this day, being more than seventy years, this
House has expressed but one opinion on this sub-
ject. They have at all times refused to tax the people
of the North to pay for the slaves of the South. We
have never regarded them as property. But an
attempt is now making to change the essential
elements of our Government. Statesmen, now, in
the high councils of the nation, deny that " all
men are created equal ;V that " they are endowed by
their Creator with the unalienable right to their lives
and their liberties ;" or, that " Governments are in-
stituted among men to secure the enjoyment of those
rightsP It is now urged that this Government was
instituted for the purpose of robbing men of those
rights ; of disrobing a portion of our race of their
humanity, and reducing them to the state of brutes,
and making them the property of others. Will
Northern members assist to commit this outrage
upon the honor of the nation and constitutional

rights of the Northern States? Is there a mem-
ber from the free States "who will vote to tax his
constituents to pay for Southern slaves ? If so,
let them place their names on record in favor of
this bill, and let that record descend to coming
generations, as a lasting memento of the princi-
ples which guide them.

I have now referred to the history of our legis-
lation on this subject. The action of our com-
mittees was well commented upon by my friend
from New Hampshire, [Mr. Wilson.] I wish,
however, to add a few words on this point. I am
not aware that any committee of this House ever
reported in favor of paying for slaves, until the
first session of the 27th Congress — being more
than sixty- five years from the formation of the
Government.

In 1830. my predecessor, the Hon. E. Whittle-
sey, reported upon the case of Francis Larche.
This was the case alluded to by the gentleman
from South Carolina, [Mr. Burt.] I understood
him to say that the slave of Larche was not im-
pressed.

Mr. Burt. The gentleman is mistaken. The
statement which I made was this : that no case
could be adduced in which a refusal to pay for a
slave had been made, on the ground that he is
not property. The gentleman is totally mis-
taken.

Mr. Giddings. I certainly understand the gen-
tleman now, and I refer particularly to the case
of D'Auterive, which was rejected on this identi-
cal point. The committee say, in express lan-
guage, that K slaves have never been placed on the
footing of property P And they rejected the claim
distinctly on that point.

But to return to the case of Larche. The Com-
mittee on Claims of the Senate (vide Rep. H. R.
401, 1st session 21st Congress) say, in distinct
language, that " the cart, horse, and negro man
Antoine, belonging to the petitioner, were im-
pressed, and sent to the lines of the American
army, on the 1st day of January, 1815, where the
negro man was killed by a cannon ball from the Brit-
ish batteries?

The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Burt]
assures us that he was not impressed. I can hard-
ly suppose that he was authorized thus distinctly
to deny the accuracy of that report, in a matter
of fact. However that may be, it is certain that
the committee understood that the man was im-
pressed. They therefore acted upon that hy-
pothesis: and with that belief the committee
unanimously reported against the bill. No strong-
er case can be imagined. The horse, cart, and ne-
gro, were impressed, as the committee reported and
believed. The petitioner was paid for the prop-
erty— that is, the horse and cart — but the claim for

the slave was rejected. Yet, sir, they had not the
advantages of knowing the sentiments of the
framers of the Constitution which we possess.
They were unconscious that the members of the
Convention declared, that "they ought to be careful
to give no sanction to slavery ;;; that they should do
nothing by which " it could be implied that slaves
were property;77 u that it was wrong to admit that
there could be property in manP I repeat, that to
the best of my knowledge, (and I have bestowed
much labor upon the subject.) no report was made
in favor of paying for slaves from the public
Treasury during the first half century which this
Government existed under the present Constitu-
tion.

If wrong on any of these points, I ask gentle-
men to correct me here, before the country. Let
them expose my errors in the presence of this
House, where I can meet them ; where, with truth
on my side, I stand prepared to defend my posi-
tions. Let gentlemen stand forth in this hall
and meet my facts and argument like men, like
statesmen, and not shrink away in silence, and then
set their letter-writers to assail me — to pour forth
their miserable abuse upon my humble self. Why,
sir, suppose they destroy me, they will leave my
doctrines, my principles, untouched. They will
remain while eternity shall last.

But to resume the history of this subject. In
the 27th Congress, the claim of James Watson
for slaves was committed to the Committee of
Claims, of which I was myself chairman. The
friends of the claim, by some means, learned that
that committee had always reported against the
payment for slaves. They therefore obtained the
transfer of that case to the Committee on Indian
Affairs, who reported a bill to pay for the slaves
claimed by Watson. That report, made seven
years since, was the first in favor of paying for
slaves as property, so far is my knowledge ex
tends, ever made to this body. During the same
session, a report from the Committee on Territo
ries was made of the " bill for the relief of the
people of West Florida," to which I have already
alluded, and which was rejected by the House.

Mr. Burt. Will the gentleman allow me the
floor a moment?

Mr. Giddings. With pleasure.

Mr. Burt. I stated in Committee the other
day; in reply to the interrogatory of the gentle-
man from Ohio, that Mr. Whittlesey, in his re
port on Larche's case, quoted the report of the
Senate. I stated further, that Mr. Williams, to
whom the gentleman from Ohio alluded, made a
report in the Senate, on this case of Larche, say
ing that there was no evidence that the slave had
been impressed at all. I stated further, that I had
examined the Senate files in that case : and there

8

is no evidence there, except the depositions of one
or two men, (in the absence of any order.) that he
•was impressed at all.

Mr. Giddings. Here is the historical record,
the documentary proof, on which we are bound to
act. I ask the gentleman from South Carolina
if he intends to overthrow it by his sidebar testi-
mony?

Mr. Burt. What is it?
Mr. Giddings. That this man was impressed.
Mr. Burt.' I do, sir. There is no evidence of
the fact.

Mr. Giddings. Then I leave the gentleman to
take issue with the history. The documentary
evidence is. that this slave was impressed; that he
was taken to the American lines, and was there
'• killed by a cannon shot from the enemy's batte-
ries."

At the period to which 1 was referring when
interrupted, I had been placed at the head of the
Committee on Claims, by the then Speaker of this
House, [Hon. John White, of Kentucky,] of whom,
though a slaveholder, I can never speak except
with profound respect. There were at that time
many claims for slaves before that committee.
It was then our settled policy to make no re-
ports on those cases, lest we should stir up agi-
tation on this delicate question.

In this Hall, before the House, I was interro-
gated by a slaveholder [Mr. Wise, of Virginia] on
this subject. I was asked distinctly whether our
committee would report in favor of paying for slaves f
I answered, that we would follow the established
practice on that subject. He replied, that my
answer was evasive, but that the established prac-
tice was not to pay for slaves. It so happened,
that on the 21st March, 1842, 1 introduced certain
resolutions declaring the rights of the people of
the free States to be exempt from the support of
the slave trade. For this I was censured and
driven from my seat. Another member was added
to the Committee on Claims ; and then, sir, dur-
ing my absence, just eight days after I left the com-
mittee, this case was urged upon the members, who were
most of them inexperienced in their duties, and unac-
quainted with the precedents. I left this Hall on the
22d March, and on the 1st day of April following
a bill was reported by a slaveholding member of that
committee, to pay for this man Lewis. This was the
first case of the kind that ever received a favor-
able report from that particular committee ; and
that report was obtained in the manner just stated.
It was in the sixty-seventh year of American
independence, and the fifty-third of our Consti-
tution. This is the history of this subject, and
of this bill. It was reported seven years since by
a Whig committee. We are yet to see whether
this House can be induced to pass it.

Sir, we have the power to overturn the practice
of this body from its first formation; we may
overthrow its established and time-honored prin-
ciples ; we may defeat the objects of those who
framed the Constitution ; we may subvert the es-
sential elements of that sacred compact which we
are sworn to support; we may attempt to change
the law of our existence — to deface the work of
God, and declare his image to be property; we
may do all this at the bidding of the slave power ;
we may humble ourselves in the presence of those
who hold the rod of terror over us ; but there is a
superior Power that will hold us to a strict ac-
count of our stewardship. Sir, the eyes of the
people are upon us ; they are watching our ac-
tions. The concentrated rays of intelligence now
brought to bear upon all our doings, render it im-
possible for us to deceive them. No evasion, no
subterfuge, will screen those who would render
Northern freemen subsidiary to the support of
Southern slavery.

To this day there has been in this Hall suffi-
cient independence and patriotism to reject all
propositions of this humiliating character. As I
have said, we are now driven to legislate by South-
ern slaveholders, under the lash of the South.

Mr. Burt. I hope the gentleman from Ohio
will allow me this opportunity to disclaim utterly
and indignantly any such imputation.

Mr. Giddings. Withdraw it, then.

Mr. Burt. I venture to appeal to this whole
Committee, who heard my remarks.

Mr. Giddings. I thought, when the gentleman
said he would hold Northern gentlemen to this
point, whether a slave was property — uthat he
would leave no loophole for us to escape" — I thought
it looked somewhat like the language of intimida-
tion ; it smacked somewhat of the plantation, of
the crack of the whip. And I took it unkind in
the gentleman from Connecticut, that, under such
circumstances, he should attempt to stifle debate,
to seal the lips of Northern men.

This bill is pressed upon us at this particular
time, when Southern men are holding Conven-
tions, and manufacturing their usual mock thun-
der of dissolving the Union, in consequence of
our agitation. We hear it rolling along the
heavens. It affords amusement to our school-
boys, who crack their jokes and sing ditties in
regard to it.

Sir, when I reflect that I am now constrained
to sit in this Hall to legislate upon the price of
human flesh as property, I feel humbled. Before
the nation, before Heaven, I protest against this
degradation. By what rule shall I arrive at the
value of this man? He is said to be very intelli-
gent and learned, reading and writing four lan-
guages. In this respect he has, probably, few

9

equals in this Hall. I mean no offence by this
comparison, either to gentlemen now present, or
to the negro "who is absent. I regard the moral
qualities of a man as the proper criterion by
which to graduate my respect. In this light, I
know not whether the comparison be uDJust to
him or to those who estimate his value at precisely
a thousand dollars. I would be as willing to enter
into an inquiry as to the value of the body of
the honorable member reporting this bill, as I
am to estimate the value of a man who; as a
linguist, probably has not a dozen equals in this
body. If we are to judge of him by the report of
the committee, if placed in this body, he might
have reflected honor upon our country and our
race. The splendor of hi3 genius might have
soared far above the grovelling intellects now en-
gaged in figuring up his value in dollars and
cents. His name might have been placed in fu-
ture history beside that of Wirt, of Henry, of
Burke, and of Sheridan ; or perhaps his philan-
thropy might have placed him on the roll of
fame with Adams and Wilberforce. And yet we
are now sitting here to inquire as to the value of
this immortal mind, to estimate its price in " glit-
tering dust." My soul shrinks from the impious
sacrilege" with loathing and disgust. But this
ethereal, immortal intellect, was bound in the
chains of bondage, shut out from that sphere of
usefulness and of action in which God designed
it to move ; and we are now asked to compensate
this claimant for committing this wrong to man-
kind, this crime against God. I am anxious to
see how Northern members estimate their fellow
men. What price do they put upon their con-
stituents ? Let their votes give the answer.

On a former occasion, I cited the opinion of an
eminent jurist (Judge McLean) on this subject.
In the case of Groves vs. Slaughter and others,
(15 Peters's Reports, 449,) this question came dis-
tinctly before the Supreme Court of the United
States. The Constitution of Mississippi had pro-
hibited the introduction of slaves into that State
after a certain day. Slaves were taken there
and sold on a credit after the time allowed by the
Constitution of that State. Suit was commenced
on the note given in consideration of the slaves.
The defence set up was, that the contract was
illegal and void under the Constitution of that
State, which prohibited the sale therein of slaves
.from without the State. The reply to this was,
that slaves were property, and therefore the State
of Mississippi had no power to prohibit their in-
troduction into the State, as the power to regu-
late commerce between the States belonged only
to Congress. In deciding the law, Judge McLean
said:
<: By the laws of certain States slaves are treated

as property ; and the Constitution of Mississippi
prohibits their being brought into that State by
citizens of other States, for sale or as merchan-
dise. Merchandise is a comprehensive term, and
may include every article of traffic, whether for-
eign or domestic, which is properly embraced by
a commercial regulation. But if slaves are con-
sidered in some of the States as merchandise, that
cannot divest them of the leading and controlling
quality of persons, by which they are designated
in the Constitution. The character of the prop-
erty is given them by the local law. This law is
respected, and all rights under it are protected
by the Federal authorities ; but the Constitution
acts upon slaves as persons, and not as property."

But one member of that Court dissented from
these views. It may therefore be regarded as an
authority, so far as the Judiciary are concerned.

If the doctrine contended for by the friends of
this bill be correct, if slaves be property, slave
markets may be opened in Boston, and Massachu-
setts will have no power to prohibit there the
revolting scenes which are witnessed in this city.
If the doctrine contended for by Southern men
be correct, no State can exclude slave markets
from its territory, or consecrate its soil to free-
dom. It well becomes Southern gentlemen to ex-
amine this subject before they base themselves
upon the principle that slaves are property. Let
that be established, and Congress will have power
to prohibit the internal slave trade at its pleasure.

I now proceed to another branch of the case.
With great propriety the gentleman from New
Hampshire inquired, at what time the liability of
Government to pay for this slave commenced ?
The question has not been answered, nor do I
think it can be answered. The undertaking was
hazardous in the highest degree. The troops
were all killed but two or three, by the enemy,
and those were supposed to be dead. This man
alone escaped unhurt. This danger was foreseen,
and the master put a price upon the services to
compare with the risk. Did this contract bind
the Government to pay for the master's loss, ad-
mitting the slave to have been property f Was it
any part of the compact that the Government
should insure the property? It strikes me that
no lawyer would answer in the affirmative. The
law of bailment is surely understood by every
tyro in the profession. The bailee for hire is
bound to exercise the same degree of care over
the property that careful men ordinarily take of
their own property. If, then, the property be
lost, the owner sustains such loss. Now, conced-
ing this man to be property, the Government
would not have been liable, had he run away, or
been killed by accident, or died of sickness. Yet,
sir, when property is lost or destroyed by the
act of God or the common enemies of the country,
no bailee is ever holden responsible— not even

10

common carriers, and that is the highest species
of bailment. Had this officer, acting on his own
responsibility, agreed to take this negro through
the country for hire, (admitting the man to have
been property, and governed by the' same rules
of law as though he had been a mule or an ass.)
and he had been captured by the enemy, no law
would have held such bailee liable. But, sir, an
entirely different rule of law prevails where the
owner of a chattel lets it to a bailee for wages.
Had this man been a mule or an ass, and the offi-
cer had hired him of the owner for wages, to
ride through that country, or to work in a team,
or in any other manner, and he had been cap-
tured by the enemy, the bailee would not have
been liable, upon any rule of law or of justice;
nor would he have been liable if lost in any other
manner, except by neglect of the bailee.

The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Burt]
said he would place this case upon strictly legal
principles. Sir, I meet the gentleman on that prop-
osition. I, too, for the sake of the argument, am
willing to submit it on principles of law \ and I
believe that no jurist, or even justice of the peace,
would hesitate to reject the claim on those grounds.
All must admit that the liability of the Govern-
ment concerning this man ceased when he was
captured by the enemy ; up to this point the Gov-
ernment was not liable. I understood the author
of this bill [Mr. Burt] to argue, however, that we
became liable under the contract of bailment.
That contract was ended when the man was cap-
tured. The claimant then failed to perform his
part of it. The stipulation on the part of the
master was, that the negro should pilot the troops
from Fort Brooke to Fort King, the place of their
destination, at the rate of twenty-five dollars per
month. He was captured when only half the
distance was accomplished. Here the master
ceased to perform his compact ; it was beyond his
power to do so. The contract then ceased to ex-
ist ; and from that time forth the claimant had no
demand on us, either in equity or in law.

I now enter upon another view of this case.
It is shown, by the testimony of General Jesup,
that this man was supposed to have kept up an
understanding with the enemy, from the time he
united with Dade's command until the massacre
of that unfortunate battalion ; that while he was
with the enemy, which was more than two years,
he united in committing depredations upon the frontier
settlements ; in short, that he mas one of the enemy.
Our army was sent there to protect this claimant,
and his wife and children and neighbors, against
this very man, who, in company with others,
murdered the people of Florida, and destroyed
their property. This expenditure of blood and
treasure by the United States was occasioned in

part by this very negro, for whom the master now
claims compensation. With his extraordinary
intelligence, with a knowledge of the wrongs
which he and his people had suffered at the hands
of those who claimed them as property, he must
have thirsted for vengeance. He could have felt
no attachment, no respect, for a people at whose
hands he had received nothing but abuse and
degradation. It was natural that he should have
sought revenge ; and it was natural that his mas-
ter should become his victim; if within his power.
But our army was sent there to protect the people
against their slaves who were with the Indians,
and their effective allies. It was under these cir-
cumstances that Lewis was captured, with other
enemies. General Jesup says that he would have
tried and hanged him, if he could have found
time. This, under martial law, he might un-
doubtedly have done. And the gentleman who re-
ported this bill admitted that in such case this claim
would never have been presented. Suppose he
had been slain in battle : I think we should never
have heard of this claim. But why had General
Jesup a right to hang him? Because he was an
enemy, dangerous to the people and to the Govern-
ment. But who will for a moment hesitate to say
that he had the same power, yea, greater power,
to send him out of the neighborhood, than he had
to slay him in battle, or to hang him. Humanity
surely would dictate that he should be sent out of
the neighborhood, rather than his life should be
sacrificed. Has the claimant's loss been greater
than it would have been had the negro been slain
or hanged ? Not at all. He had been taken in
arms, had committed depredations upon the peo-
ple ; he had occasioned much loss of blood and
treasure to the nation. Could General Jesup have
left him in Florida, consistently with his duty 1
I think not.

Here another important question arises. Had
the claimant any right to keep an enemy so dan-
gerous within any civilized community ? Is there
a member of this body who will rise in his place
and assert that any master possesses the right to
retain such a foe on his plantation ? Has any
man the right to keep a rabid dog, or other ani-
mal, and suffer him to go at large in the commu-
nity ? I am now arguing the legal question. I
am considering this man as property, the same as
though he were an ass or a mule. And I lay it ,
down as clear and indisputable law, that, had
such mule or ass killed the people, and destroyed
their property, as this man had done, any member
of the community might either have shot him, or
chased him out of the neighborhood with impu-
nity.

I therefore meet the gentleman who reported
this bill on every point involved in this case5 le-

11

gal, equitable, or constitutional, and I can find no
merits in it.

But, sir, as I am for the moment engaged in a
legal examination of the case, I desire to follow it
a little further. This man was guilty of treason
against the United States, or he was an enemy to
our Government. I think it doubtful whether
slaves can commit treason, as they owe no allegi-
ance to our Government. But if he was not a
traitor, he was surely an enemy to the country.
Now, sir, whether traitor or enemy, and the mas-
ter, knowing the fact, " had harbored him," "ad-
hered to him," or " given him aid and comfort,"
would not the master have been guilty of the
crime of misprision of treason against the United
States, and punishable under our laws? Of this
I think there is no doubt. And yet we are called
upon to pay him a thousand dollars for taking
away a man thus dangerous to himself, who, if he
had remained with him, would probably have
subjected him to the gallows. Let gentlemen re-
flect and vote as men, as intelligent statesmen.

Another question arises in this case, which, to
me, is equally fatal to the claim. A state of war
existed. General Jesup was the commanding
officer in "Florida. He was the agent of the Gov-
ernment ; and whatever the Government might
do to insure the safety of the people, their agent
for the time being could accomplish under the
martial law. By the term " martial law," I mean
the war power, which is the most dangerous, the
most indefinite, the most unlimited, exercised
among nations. I do not refer to the rules and
articles of war, but to that vague, indefinite, un-
definable power which knows no limits. It is
that power which, in time of war, may do any-
thing in the power of man to accomplish ; may
command any sacrifice of the people, or of any
portion of them, in order to secure the safety of
the Government, and of the subjects generally.
It is that power which authorizes the military
commander, in short, to do whatever he deems
necessary for the security of the public 3 by which,
suspected men were arrested and imprisoned in
Connecticut and New York during the Revolu-
tion ; by which, others were ordered to leave the
country 5 and by which, others were shot down,
their dwellings burned, and their estates confis-
cated. It is the power exercised in South Caro-
lina, during the Revolution, by Sumter, and by
Marion, and their compatriots. It was by virtue
of this power that Jackson, at New Orleans, sus-
pended the writ of habeas corpus — adjourned the
Legislature of Louisiana — ordered old men and
boys, not liable to do military duty by law, on to
the lines, to defend the city — sent all foreigners
out of the city, as he regarded them dangerous, as
this man was supposed to be — suffered no com-

munication between the city and country — order-
ed a portion of the slaves also into service, and
sent the others back into the interior. Many of
those slaves were killed, but we have at all times
refused to pay for them. But does any one deny
these unlimited powers ? Not at all. If General
Jackson had the right to send freemen and slaves
away from the scene of danger, had not General
Jesup the same power ? Most assuredly he had.
But the best illustration of this tremendous power
is said to have occurred at Fort Erie, at the time
the British attacked it in 1814. A lieutenant
commanded a picket guard at the west of the fort,
perhaps a mile distant. A beautiful plain ex-
tends in that direction some half or three-fourths
of a mile, bounded by a dense forest. He was
posted in this forest. As the British column ad-
vanced, the brave lieutenant, with his little band,
retreated in front of them, keeping up his fire in
gallant style, in order to retard their progress,
and give notice to our men in the fort, and time
for them to prepare to receive the enemy. An
officer who had command of a heavy park of ar-
tillery on that wing of the fort, as the British
column emerged from the forest, and he saw its
force, opened a tremendous fire upon it. Our
little guard and their brave commander were di-
rectly between the fort and the advancing col-
umn of the British army. They of course fell
beneath the same fire that cut down the hostile
column. As the story is related, General Brown
was informed of the fact, and sent peremptory
orders to the officer to cease his fire. To this
order he paid no attention, but kept up such a
shower of grape and canister, that the British
column was broken and scattered before they
reached the fort, so that not a man scaled its
walls. But the whole of our picket guard, with
their commander, were sacrificed ; not a man sur-
vived. For this conduct the officer was arrested,
and, on trial, showed conclusively that the sacri-
fice of our own guard of thirty men was necessary
to save the fort and those in it. They, sir, were
freemen. Their lives were surrendered for the
safety of the army. These five Southern gentle-
men who reported this bill now insist th>t the
widows and orphan children of those men shall
contribute a portion of their substance to pay for
a Southern slave, who, for the safety of his own
master as well as others, was sent out of the
neighborhood. If there be a Northern man in
this body willing to lend his vote to consummate
such an insult to the honor of the free States,
let him stand forth and avow it. Were it not
chilling tc the feelings of humanity, I would give
another illustration of this indefinite and unlim-
ited power. I refer to the execution of those lads
on board the sloop of war Somers. a few years

12

since, when several midshipmen and apprentices
were hanged by order of a lieutenant, without
trial, in order to secure the safety of the ship and
crew. Shall we now tax the fathers and brothers
of those young men to pay for this slave ?

But, sir, to come more immediately to the pre-
cise case before us, I refer gentlemen to the South-
ampton riots in 1832. The newspapers of that
day informed us that slaves, and indeed colored
freemen, were shot down in the streets, others
sent to prison, and others sent out of the neigh-
borhood. Shall Northern men be taxed to pay
for them? Certainly, if you pass this bill, we
must expect to open the Treasury to the slave-
holders in all these and in ten thousand other
cases. By virtue of this same power exercised at
Southampton, General Jesup, in order to secure
the safety of the people of Florida, sent this man
Lewis with the Indians west of the Mississippi ;
and now the master, instead of paying the ex-
pense of arresting this man — instead of refund-
ing to this Government and to the people of Flor-
ida the losses he has occasioned by bringing this
slave among them — instead of paying for the
property this man destroyed — he comes here and
demands that we should pay him a thousand dol-
lars for preventing Lewis from killing more people
and destroying more property.

I have now stated my own views in regard to
the powers of General Jesup to send this man
out of the neighborhood. If he possessed these
powers to deal with him as with any other ene-
my, no man will urge that we are in law or jus-
tice bound to pay for him. Admitting, however,
for the sake of the argument, that General Jesup
had no right to deal with him as an enemy, but
that he was bound, under the order of the War
Department, to deliver him over as a slave ; that
he disobeyed this order, and sent him West upon
his own responsibility, and in violation of his
duty ; in such case, I ask, is there a member on
this floor who for a moment would suppose the
People bound to pay for a slave taken by Gene-
ral Jesup, in violation of his duty and of positive
orders from the War Department?

Every member must be aware that the rules
which aontrol a public agent are the same as
those which govern in private life. Suppose I
employ a man to act as my agent. While he con-
fines himself to the business on which he is au-
thorized to act, I am bound in law and in justice
by his contract. Suppose I employ my friend on
my right to go and purchase a horse for me : he
makes a contract for the horse in my name ; I am
bound by it, and must perform it. But suppose
he purchase a farm in my name : no man would
suppose me obligated to take the farm.

Military officers are the agents of Government,

to do all things pertaining to their office, and
which come within the line of their duties. Gen.
Jesup was an agent to send out of Florida all
enemies of the country ; but he was not our agent
to send the friends of Government west of the
Mississippi. If he has done so, the act is his,
not ours. It was unauthorized, and he alone is
liable. Now, I understand the gentleman from
South Carolina [Mr. Burt] to urge that he was
an enemy, and dangerous to the country. I ad-
mit the fact, and say that he should be treated as
an enemy. But if he were not an enemy, then
there is no claim on the Government.

But the committee are not content with urging
that he was an enemy to the country, and danger-
ous : they suddenly change the argument, and say
that he was taken for public use. An enemy to the
nation is taken for public use ! Well, sir, the argu-
ment is ingenious. It never found a place in the
mind of Grotius or Puffendorf, or of any writer
upon the law of nations or the rights of govern-
ment. But the point was adopted by the argu-
ment of the gentleman from South Carolina, and
perhaps I ought to notice it. For what use was
he taken ? To what use was he applied ? The
gentleman admits the right to shoot or to hang
him. Would not that have been as much a " tak-
ing for public use " as it was to banish him ? The
use of sending him out of the country was the
preservation of the lives and property of the peo-
ple. That would have been equally attained by
shooting or hanging the negro. But the reply to
this is, that he was property. Well, I repeat, sup-
pose he had been a rabid dog or a vicious mule,
killing people and destroying their property, and
General Jesup had shot or chased him out of the
country, to prevent him from killing his master
or others, would the Government have been lia-
ble ? I will not argue the point further.

Again : it is said that, by the act of hiring, we
admitted the slave to be property, and that the
Government is now estopped from denying that
fact. We are bound to treat all arguments on
this floor with respect. But to suppose that this
obscure lieutenant, who, perhaps, never read a
commentary on the Constitution, and who, I dare
say, never dreamed that he was affecting, or doing
anything to affect, our rights or our duties : I say,
to suppose that his acts would estop Congress
from maintaining the Constitution, or that such
acts would have any weight whatever with this
body, is a proposition which I will not detain the
House to examine. He was our agent for the
purposes of doing his military duty ; but we never
authorized him to legislate for us, or to give con-
struction to our constitutional rights. Why, sir,
I may hire out my son or apprentice or my hired
servant ; but would that be an admission that they

13

were my property ? Or suppose I agree that the
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Burt] shall
attend the Speaker to a given place : does that im-
ply that I hold him as property 1 No, sir ; the
only fact implied is, that I have a right to receive
the wages when the labor or duty is performed,
according to my contract. In this case, the claim-
ant agreed that Lewis should accompany the
troops, and the officer agreed to pay the master
twenty-five dollars per month. The claimant
might have made the same arrangement in regard
to any freeman as he did in regard to Lewis ; and
when the labor was performed, he would have the
same right to the money. But, in such case, would
the Government be obligated to pay him for the
body of such freeman ? No doubt the obliga-
tions would rest upon the hirer that now rest on
the Government, and no more.

But the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr.
Burt] says, that the act of 1815, levying direct
taxes, recognises slaves as property. That law
provides, '• that such tax shall constitute a lien
upon the real estate, and upon all slaves of indi-
viduals upon whom said taxes shall be assessed."
My presumption is, that this bill was drawn by
some Southern man, who did not reflect that slaves
were less property under the Federal Constitu-
tion than they were under the laws of the slave
States. The gentleman does not pretend that, at
the passage of that law, the question whether
slaves were persons or property, was raised, or
discussed, or thought of. I need not say that a
bill passed sub silentio constitutes no precedent.
In our courts of justice, the judge takes no notice of
questions not made by the parties, nor do the
proceedings of a court form any authority on
points not raised nor discussed by counsel, nor
examined by the court.

The case of Depeyster, to which I referred, was
a stronger case than that of the law of 1815. My
friend from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Dickey,] as well
as myself, stated that that case passed when no
one knew it. I knew that my lamented friend
[Mr. Adams] and myself both intended to oppose
its passage, and we were both watching it ; but it
got through when we were unconscious of it. Does
any man — I will not say lawyer — suppose that its
passage constitutes any precedent showing that
slaves are property? Yet this law of 1815, so far
as we know, received no more attention (or at
least that part of it relating to slaves) than did
the act for the relief of Depeyster. It can there-
fore constitute no precedent.

The force of a precedent consists in the respect
which we pay to the judgment of a former Con-
gress. It is therefore necessary, to give a prece-
dent any force whatever, that the judgment- of the
tribunal should have been exercised upon the

question, whether it be a judicial or legislative
precedent. Thus, in each case that I have cited
as precedents, either in this House or in commit-
tees, the questions now under consideration were
discussed, and deliberation had, and a judgment
given upon the point before us. Now, sir, let me
say, with all due respect to Southern gentlemen,
that I challenge them to produce an instance in
which this House, or the Supreme Court of the
United States, or any respectable court of any
free State, has decided slaves to be property under
the Federal Constitution, in any case where that
question has been raised, discussed, or examined.
I desire to see gentlemen come to a definite issue
on this subject. I wish to meet them fairly and
distinctly. They must admit that the framers of
the Constitution intended to exclude from that
instrument the idea that there could be property
in man. To that point I intend to hold them.
And I call upon them to meet the record of Mr.
Madison, to which I have referred. Let them
deny that record, or carry out the intentions of
the framers of that instrument.

The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Burt]
says he " should like to know what was contem-
plated by that clause in the Constitution which
stipulates for the surrender of fugitive slaves,
unless it be that their owners hold property in
them V1 I answer, that clause means just what it
says. It gives to the holder of slaves the right to
pursue and recapture them in a free State, pre-
cisely as it gives me the right to pursue and re-
take my apprentice or my son in any State to
which he may escape. It no more admits the
slave to be property, than it admits the apprentice
or the minor to be property. I am tired of hear-
ing this clause of the Constitution quoted to prove
almost every doctrine advanced by Southern men.
Its provisions are of the most plain and obvious
character. It merely provides for the recapture
and return of slaves, and nothing more.

But my hour has nearly expired. My constit-
uents hold slavery to be a crime of the deepest
dye. The robbing a man of his money or prop-
erty, or the seizing of his ship upon the high seas,
we regard as grievous ofFences, which should ex-
clude the perpetrator from human associations for
the time being. But we look upon those crimes as
of small importance, when compared with that of
robbing a man of his labor, his liberty, his social,
his intellectual enjoyments j to disrobe him of
his humanity, to degrade and brutalize him. On
this account we protest solemnly against being in-
volved in the wickedness and in the crimes of that
institution. To-day we are asked to pay our
money for the liberty of our fellow-man. We hold
that he was endowed with that liberty by his Cre-
ator ; that it is impious, and in the highest degree

"fi - ''tiitotWtf

14

criminal, for a man, or for a Government, to rob
any portion of our race of their God-given rights.
As the representative of a Christian and a moral
constituency, I deny the right of Congress to in-
volve them or me in the support of such crimes.
By our compact of Union, no such power is dele-
gated to Congress. By the passage of this bill,
we shall become slave dealers ourselves — traders
in humanity. The people of our State shrink
from the foul contagion. With Mr. Gerry, we
hold that " we have nothing to do with slavery in the
States, but we will be careful not to give it any sanc-
tion;" with Mr. Madison, we hold that ait would
be wrong to admit that there can be property in man ;"
and with the signers of the Declaration of Amer-
ican Independence, we hold that it is a " self-
evident truth, that all men are created equal." We
believe our rights to enjoy these doctrines unmo-
lested by this Government are as clear and indis-
putable as are the rights of the slave States to deny
them in theory and in practice. We claim no su-
periority of privileges under the compact. We
admit them, under the Constitution, to enjoy their
slavery unmolested by Congress or by the free
States. Tts blessings and its curses, its horrors
and its disgrace, are theirs. We neither claim
the one, nor will we share in the other. We will
have no participation in its guilt. " It is the ob-
ject of our perfect hate." Southern gentlemen
may continue to misrepresent us, by saying that
we seek to interfere with that institution in the
States ; but, thank God, we have at last obtained
access to the public* ear. The people of the free
States now understand that all our efforts, politi-
cally, are based upon the constitutional right of
being exempt from its support. For years I have
made it a practice, when I have spoken in this
Hall, to guard against misrepresentation, by avow-
ing my doctrines. I am aware of the efforts now
making hy Northern presses, letter-writers from
this city, and editors who pander to the spirit of
servility, to misrepresent my views, and assail my
motives. Sir, let me say to those men, before
Heaven, If they will come up to the work, unite
their influence, and separate this Government
from the support of slavery and the slave trade,
and leave that institution where the Constitution
placed it — with the States in which it exists —
with gratitude to God, and with love and good

will to all my fellow-men, I will retire from these
halls to the obscurity of private life.

Sir, I may, on the present occasion, disabuse my-
self of the imputation that I wish to embarrass
the friends of the incoming Administration. Those
who have done me the honor to observe my course
in this Hall for the last ten years, must do me the
justice to say, that my efforts here have been
against existing evils. I desire to see every mem-
ber of every party lend his influence to support
the Constitution of my country and the rights of
humanity. Sir, I war upon no party. I wish to
see the people of the free States purified from the
support, the crimes, the contagion of slavery. I
would oppose any member or any party who seeks
to uphold the slave trade or slavery by Congres-
sional laws, or lends his influence to continue
within this District, or on the high seas, a com-
merce in human flesh. I know that the sympa-
thies, the consciences, and the judgment of the
people are with me. Recent events have demon-
strated the power of truth. Its omnipotence is ir-
resistible. It is rolling onward. No political pal-
tering, no party evasions, no deceptions, no dodg-
ing of responsibility, will satisfy the people. No ;
gentlemen must come up to the work ; they must
take their position upon the line of the Constitu-
tion, and maintain the rights of the free as well as
of the &lave States, or they will be overwhelmed
by the indignation of a free and virtuous people.
Gen. Taylor and his friends will have an oppor-
tunity of gaining immortal honors, and of de-
serving and receiving the gratitude of the Ameri-
can people. Let them at once abolish slavery and
the slave trade in this District, and upon the high
seas ; let this Government cease to oppress and de-
grade our race ; let us cease to legislate for slavery;
let the powers and influence of Government be ex-
erted to promote human liberty, to elevate man-
kind in his moral and physical being ; and the
honors of men, and the blessings of Heaven, and
the gratitude of this and of coming generations,
shall be theirs. But if their influence be exerted
to maintain this commerce in human flesh now
carried on this District, and upon the high seas —
to involve the people of the North in these tran-
scendent crimes — then the opposition of good men,
the curse of Heaven, and the execrations of pos-
terity, will be their reward !

r— ' i i -tfhiiriBi

7/.^0^<?,tfSV, £>">63.$