■
1
• •
■
!
J
1
-
■
in . , t
: I ft
■
r% it
.03
I3S&
H0LL1NGER pH8.5
MILL RUN F3-1543
/
E 423 .C33 Copy 1
SPEECH
MR. CASEY, OF PENNSYLVANIA,
THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE, COMMUNICATING THE CONSTITUTION OF
CALIFORNIA.
Delivered in the House of Representatives of the United States, March 18, 1850.
Mr. Chairman: I have not sought the floor with the expectation of saying any thing which will shed new light upon this vexed and difficult question ; but more particidarly for the purpose of ex- hibiting; to my constituents that 1 am not indifferent upon a subject, in the settlement of which they, in common with the whole country feel a deep interest. I shall express, sir, the sentiments I enter- tain upon these topics as becomes the Representative of freemen, " without fear, favor, or affection " and regardless of denunciations or criticisms here or elsewhere. I am not one of those who assume the extreme ground on either side. I do not regard the institution of slavery as it exists in our Southern States with that degree of horror which some of my Northern brethren express; neither do I regard it as a " great moral, political, and religious blessing" with some gentlemen from the South. I simply view it, in the language of Thomas Jefferson, as "a great moral and political evil." Taking this view of the subject, it could not be expected that I should engage in a crusade for its extinction where it exists on the one hand, or on the other desire, and much less promote, its extension to territory now free. I am willing to leave it where the Constitution and the laws under which we live have placed it. I am not responsible either for its existence or its continuance there ; and if it is a " curse and a dis- grace," those who uphold it, are to answer for it, and not I.
The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Morsk) says, we ought to " talk" upon this subject, and mis- quotes a great author to furnish proof. Sir, we have had "too much "talk" already, and too little reason upon this question ; the quotation is, " He that will not reason is a bigot, he that dare not is a slave, and he tl at cannot is a fool."
The whole difficulty, as I apprehend, originates in the different construction of the power of Con- gress under the Constitution to legislate on the subject of slavery in the Territories — the North as- serting the right ; the South denying it. This is, therefore, a fair subject of argument; of sound, calm, dispassionate reasoning. If it should be found that we do not possess that power, the North is bound to submit; if, on the other hand, it is conferred by that instrument, the South are equally bound to bow to its mandates.
Before I proceed to this question, I desire to remark, that so far as the territory acquired from Mexico is concerned, that it is now free. The Constitution and laws of Mexico made it so beyond a doubt ; and the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Toombs) admits this, and insists that we are bound to remove this impediment, and thus enable the South to carry their slaves thither. Being, then, free when ceded to the United States, this territory must remain so, until tins law is r< pealed by Congress, or until some local sovereignty, having jurisdiction over the subject, shall annul it.
For my own part, I most ardently desire that it shall remain free; and 1 will never, by act or vote mine, do aught to make it otherwise.
Slavery I hold exists no where in this country, except by local laws and positive regulations. So far as the States are concerned, they have the sole power over it ; and so far I agree with the Balti- more platform, that " Congress has no power to interfere with slavery in the States, or to take even incipient steps tending thereto." But with regard to the Territories, it presents a very different ques- tion. They are without local legislatures, and the power of making laws for them must necessarily devolve upon Congress, or else does not exist at all. That Congress has this right I infer from the very act of acquisition, and that whether acquired by conquest or by cession. Can it be possible, that a country may be transferred, and the right of the conquered or ceding country fo govern it be thus extinguished, and the conquering country acquire no right to legislate for that territory? Where, I ask, is the sovereignty of the country? It resided in Mexico. She certainly neither docs nor can claim it now. It is not in the people of New Mexico and California, for they are seeking to acquire
Gideon & Co., Printers.
that, with your consent, by admission into the Union. According to the logic of gentlemen on the other side, it lias Dot vested any where, but is simply in abeyance.
These conclusions, which would place this Territory beyond the action of Congress, I hold to be unsound, and not only not supported by precedent, but in direct conflict with all the action and expe- rience of not only this, but every other civilized Government on the earth. This power has been fully recognised by all the departments of our Government — Legislative, Executive, and Judicial ; by a consistent and uninterrupted tram of action, from the foundation of the Government to the present day; and it appears most passing strange that any gentleman should deny it upon this floor.
The gentleman from Georgia (Mj. Toombs) cites the provisions in the Constitution in relation to the importation of slaves, slave representation, and recapture of fugitives, and exclaims, "Gentlemen, deceive not yourselves; you cannot deceive others. This is a pro-slavery Government. Slavery is stamped upon its heart— the Constitution. You must tear that out of the body politic before you can commence the work of its eradication." Now, so far from this being the case, I defy that gentleman, or any other here, to point to any clause or word in that Constitution that confers the right upon any mortal man to own a slave. It confers no right — it merely secures you in the enjoyment of what you before possessed. This was the compromise of the Constitution — nothing more. If by eradication he means its abolition in the States, 1 agree with him; if he refers to the Territories, I join issue with him.
This power is not in my mind left to doubtful construction. The clause in the Constitution is full and ample. •' The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regula- tions respecting the territory, or other property, of the United States." Now, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Disney) argues that this conferred no other power upon Congress than to dispose of the land. That if the framers of the Constitution had intended to confer upon Congress the right of legislating generally for the Territories, they would have used other expressions, such as to "make laws," "to legislate," &c, and that the terms "rules and regulations" do not apply to the higher objects of government, but merely to some minor and unimportant subjects; and particularly does not apply to persons, but merely to things.
In answer to this permit me, sir, to remark, that if those who framed this Constitution intended merely to confer the power to dispose of the lands, why was it necessary to add " and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the Territory?" This instrument was drawn with much care, and is in every "part expressed with great terseness and brevity. No redundancies, such as this would present — no amplifications, no repetitions, such as the gentleman's construction shows — are exhibited anywhere in this instrument. And all this too, remember, to express an inferior and sub- ordinate power. The natural, and I have no doubt the correct, construction will strike any man of ordinary judgment at a glance. The power of disposing is conferred in terms ; and, in addition, the power to make "all needful rules and regulations."
Let us, now, examine the meaning of those terms "rules and regulations." And, in answer to the ■ inquiry why the framers of the Constitution did not use some other mode of conveying their mean- ing, I can only say, that I know of none more full and expressive, and yet so concise, in the compass of our language. No man will certainly contend that the power of settling, fixing, and controlling the commercial relations of a country, is a mutter cither of minor importance, or their proper regula- tion a subordinate power. Yet, sir, this vast power, and no one has disputed that Congress has not the most full and unlimited control over it, is conferred in the Constitution by this very same term, "to regulate commerce with foreign nations," &c, embracing in its provisions some of the highest acts of sovereignty which a nation can exercise. The same reasoning applies 10 the clause which gives the power to Congress " to coin money and regulate the value thereof." Will any person, tor a mo- ment, contend that the circulating medium, which forms the basis of all the transactions of society, and measures the value of all property, and the price of every commodity, is an inferior and subordinate subject? If this term in these instances and in these clauses convey powers of such vast magnitude and importance, I ask, by what fair rule of interpretation can gentlemen contend that a different rule of construction should obtain, in reference to the clause now under consideration r And that, too, in the face of the fact, that it is used by the same men, in the same instrument, and at the same time.
The gentleman from Ohio, in my humble opinion, is still more unfortunate in reference to the word "rules" used in this clause. If the gentleman inquires, why those who draughted the Constitution did not use the words " to make laws," " to legislate," &c, I answer, simply because the word "rules" is a better and more significant word. It has not only in the Constitution, as I shall presently shew from other clauses, a very significant and comprehensive meaning, but had then and long before, in legal phraseology or instruments, a certain and well-defined import. The very first sentence the student of law reads is, " Law is defined to be a rule, of action, whether animate or inanimate." Whether applied to persons or things, it is still a rule ; whether to objects of superior or inferior magnitude and import- ance, it remains the same. Burke says, "law is beneficence acting by rule.'" A statute or law is a rule of civil conduct. The greatest lexicographer of the age defines a rule to be "govi rnmenf : sway: em- pire: control: supreme command or authority." And, to rule, "to have power or command: to ex- ercise supreme authority." This being the ordinary and accepted di finition of the terms, let us sec in what sense it has been employed by the sages who framed our Constitution, in regard to other
Eowers which an iv d. Ii authorizes Congress "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization."
■ that too id not upon persons .' Is it an inferior and subordinate power? That
power winch rei i patriation,and provides for the transfer of personal obligations,
to country, the most binding and Bolemn Which man can assume upon earth. Of a similar nature is the authority to "make rules concerning captures on land or water." And, also, " to make
rules for the government of the land and i | . that from i
of the meaning and ordinary acceptation of th( their ac-
knowledged signification in oil • i doubt,
and even beyond thi hop< of cavil, ih il in tl Supreme Courl ol the United i I I
territory ol the Uniti d Stales:) the j
fer it without limitation to en .•. i lov< rnmt nl lo r< d. . ,
tion to the formation and power of the n< "this power i ol - I
Bidered the foundation upon which the territoral govern i
sions of the Federal and State courl ct ; but I will mem : ilmt is,
the supreme courl of I ided, u bad the
"glit to r< ry from the Nonhwi I ere, «ubse-
quent to the ord . . him al lil
tary writer.-- on our I lonstitution fully com ur in th< 10 judicial di ,., page
385, and Rawle, page 221
It will be remembered, too, that th lihance exolu N .ywos
passed on the 13th July, ] 781 . ■ r; and, all med the
Constitution, was in session, and remainei I - n two montl
Now, I ask. it' ii is inn abundantly cl< ar, will Item of thi ■
tensive power by Congress, if they did nol intend to confer it, would l ed Home
restrictive or prohibitory tion of
Congress? Willi the knowli dge of this ordinance b< fore them, and the it is but a fair and legitim ne, that they intendi
to that body. And the fact th i has, from tl i down to the
present time, continued to ex< rci e this right in ind breadth, .-.>nd all
controversy.
The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 'r^-.. "Until the year 1820 your territorial legislation
was marked by the same | Notwithstanding tl
tions to the contrary by gentlemi n from the North, up to ilia* period in gress maintaining or asserting the primary constitutional power to prevent any citizen of the 1 States owning slaves from removing with them t< . and there . election
for this property.?'
I maintain, sir, that Congress, on the 7ih of August, 1789, did, in effect, re-affirm the ordinance of
1787; and have no doubt, from (he preamble, thai they fel ■(" their power to do so.
they declared in that preamble thai k was in order thai the ordinance ' tinue to have
full effect," the slavery restriction was a part of it, and it could nol have ftlllej) 'riction
remained in full force.
To show, however, that Congress .' to some of the
laws in relation to tlie Territories, ;n which the power to recofi rict and ex-
clude, has been constantly ex<
2(< .?;»•!(■, 1790. Congress' accepted the cession frot i lina of what is now Tennessee, with
a slavery clause ; and a territorial government was erected in May following.
7th April, 1798. Mississippi Territory was erect- f 1787 extended •
except the Gth section. This was equivalent to the n cognition of the riirlr
7th May, 1800. Indiana Territory was erected , and Uie< led over it
26th March, 1804. The territory 1803 > ted into two territorial govern-
ments— Orleans and Louisiana. Thi territory, and it was permitted to p main so ; but the
introduction of slaves from foreign countries, and :-.!>«> from 01 - ii by settlers, was prohib-
ited. In 1819 the supreme court o( Louisiana affirmed this law, and divided that slaves introduced in contravention of that law were free. — 6 Martin's Reps., 65b".
11th Jan., 1805. Michigan was created a T< I the ordinance extended over it.
3d February, 1809. A similar act was passed for Illinois.
4th June, 1812. Missouri Territory was created, and the same r> slrictions in regard to the foreign and domestic slave trade, as were appli' d to Louisiana, were extended to her.
5th March, 1820. Congress passed a bill authorizing Missouri to forma State government, and prohibited slavery north of 36° 30'.
3d March, 1823. The importation of slaves into Florida was prohibited, under severe penalties and the freedom of the slave.
30th June, 1834. Congress passed a law repealing an act of the legis'ative council of Florida, im- posing a higher tax on slaves of non-residents than on slaves of n sid(
20th April, 1836. Wisconsin was erected into a Territory, and the ordinance of 1787 extended over it.
In 1848 Oregon was created, and the " Wilmot proviso" extended over it.
I have cited these laws and acts of Congress, Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of showing to the country that, so far from this power having been denied, there has been an uninterrupted and unre- stricted exercise of this right of legislation by Congress! not only on the subject of slavery, both for and against, both in restriction and recognition, but on all subjects connected with the management and government of the Territories and tl.- uts.
But, sir, we have been told, in the progress of this debate, that although the Mexican law exe'uded
slavery from these Territories, yet the moment we acquired them, the Constitution of the United States, by virtue of its pro-slavery character, repealed that law and established slavery there. Now, this argu- ment assumes two things, neither of which, in my judgment, are correct : 1st. That the Constitution of the United States extends to the Territories; and,2dly. That it carries slavery wherever the United States have jurisdiction ; and of course authorizes the South to remove there with their slaves.
These same gentlemen tell us, gravely, that this Constitution is a compact and a compromise. And if so, when did these Territories become parties to this compact and this compromise? But apart from this argument, it may be clearly demonstrated that the Constitution, in its general provisions, docs not extend to the Territories. The Constitution declares^hat "this Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties, Ac, shall be the supreme law of the land " If the. ('.institution extends there, then all laws passed in pursuance of its powers extend there also ; and your legislation forthose Territories is a mere work of supererogation. But this is contrary to the entire pacticeand history of the Government.
Again : the Constitution declares that " the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the Supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior." No one, I apprehend, will contend that the courts established in the Territories are part of the judicial power of the United States. If so, how does it happen that the tenure of their offices is limited, and has always been so, to four years, in direct opposition to this provision? The only satisfactory answer I can find is, that these courts are erected by Congress, in pursuance of the power to make " all needful rules and regulations respecting the Territory" of the United States, and in doing so are not limited and bound by the general provisions of that instrument. Who ever heard or supposed that, by the acquisition of Louisiana, the writ of habeas corpus and the right of trial by jury were ex- tended there? Yet such would have been the immediate consequence of the operation of the Consti- tution, which secures and guaranties these rights to all who come within the pale of its provisions. It was but at the last session of Congress that a proposition was made to extend the Constitution to California; and I believe almost every Southern gentleman voted for that proposition. But why do this, if it was already there in its full force? I regard this as a plain and distinct admission that the only part of the Constitution which has any operation upon the people there, is that provision which enables us to legislate for them, and which your Supreme Court says is " only limited by the discre- tion of Congress." But even admitting it to be there in full force and operation, I deny, most em- phatically, the conclusion sought to be established. As 1 have shown, in the former part of this argument, that this Constitution never did and never will, propria vigorc, authorize any one to hold in bondage any single human being as a slave. I do not say that Congress, under this power, might not pass laws to that effect ; but I will say, such laws shall never be passed with my vote or with my consent.
But gentlemen say, you cannot exclude us from equal participation in this common treasure ; you cannot prevent us from going to the Territories and carrying our property with us. I can only answer this by saying, we give you an open field along with us. We neither possess nor ask the right to go and take slaves there, and why should you possess any rights that we do not ? Cannot you, like us, go without your slaves? Or do you regard them as a part of your identity and existence? What is property and what is not. is dependant on the local laws and jurisdic- tions under which we live. Yours give you the right to hold and own slaves as property ; and the Constitution of the United States protects you in the enjoyment of that property, and, in case of voluntary escape, enables you to recapture it. But whenever, by your own voluntary act, you remove with your slaves beyond the jurisdiction of those local laws and regulations which conferred upon you this right and this property to another jurisdiction, which does not recognise and confer this right, not only your local laws under which you had held your slaves become inoperative, but the Constitu- tion of the United States no longer secures you in that property, but shields and protects the slave in the assertion of his freedom. Our local and municipal laws confer upon us many rights and franchises — such as banks, insurance and other joint stock companies — in which m«ch of our wealth and capital is embarked ; yet the wildest enthusiast never dreamed for a moment that he could enter the Territo- ries and enjoy these rights there, and thus carry his local and municipal privileges beyond the juris- diction by which they were conferred. Though I must acknowledge 1 can see as good reason for the claim in the one case as in the other.
If gentlemen of the South are sincere in their belief of the unconstitutionality of legislation of this kind over the Territory, it appears to me they would manifest it, not by heat and excitement here — not by threatening to " resist at all hazards and to the last extremity'" — not by calling conventions to dissolve the Union and destroy the Government, but would appeal peaceably to the judiciary of the country to pronounce all laws of that kind null and void. This would appear to suggest itself as the more rational as well as the more honest and patriotic course.
In regard to California, these principles can have no application. The people of that country have settled these matters for themselves. They have formed a State Government, and are here asking for admission into the Union as a sister State. And upon what grounds can we refuse to receive them? Gentlemen object because the proceedings to form a constitution were irregular and unautho- rized by Congress. But they should remember, at the same time, that Congress and the country owed it to the people of California, and to the thousands of our citizens emigrating there, to establish for }hem a government which would afford them security and protection. So far from this, they were almost abandoned by the Government, and left to take care of themselves as best they might. Under these circumstances, I hold that the people of California were not onlyj ustified, but had a perfect right,
to meet and form for themselves such government as they (tamed heal adapted to thi hr itu ktioil and necessities. Under the pressure of cirouoi tahei ,1 inouiryl o
is that constitution republican in it:- formi This, I believe is nol a wb\ will •
repulse her from your door, and spurn i "* M
any other members upon this .i B I ' ■VM
referred to by the late President of the Qi I Bi m i, in hi • "• M
a probable and desirable event; and a bill for thai '
Democratic Senator. Did the South then feel alanni a Did thi y th< n i ill conventions, and proj
" to resist at all hazards and to the las) exln n
who, at the adjournment on the 4th ol March, 1849, did nol believi
California would adopl th( only alternalivi laP. them, ol providing for il weir
own government .' Itwaa the in* ill of the moat ungracious and unkind a
this Government, and that, too, owing to the difficult) arising from thia q
they, as they bad a perfect right to do, have now Battled and adjusted for themselves.
But things have now ai umed a different the spirit of
the dream" of gentlemen from the South. ZacbaryTa] of the United States. The spoils of office- and the hope of prefermenl
of gentlemen, and it bi >nd bill* r wai upon hi - admintstrauon.
And, sir, the course of this debate that much of thi i lury "
we have heard on this question lias i lent spirit of party passion and party rancor. Ami in the pi
have been swept along by a whirlwind, of pa ton, which lias drowned the roii e of tb< "*on
and their better judgment.
We want no stronger proof of this than the very absurd, I been urged against the admission of this State- that the formation of this constitution and the exclusion of slavery was brought about l.v Presidential interference; that the President, a Southern man and a slaveholder, employed T. Butler King, another Southern man aed a alavi hold* ■•mia
for the purpose of inducing the people of that Territory to form a constitution, and to prohibit the introduction of slavery there by force, or fraud, or pi (-suasion. If the President h y of
the folly and stupidity which gentlemen on the other side attribute to him, he would di male-
dictions which have been heaped upon him for employing such an agent for such a put , air,
these charges are wantonly made, in the very fece and teeth of the moat overwhelming and irrefra- gable proofs to the contrary, and arc nit. rated with the foil and complete evid- , Ol all the instructions given to that gentleman, with his own unimpeached and unimpeachable li that he had no such instructions and attempted no Buch interference as are charged . • n on die Democratic side of this Hall. I regard it as the best encomiums upon this Administration when talented and honorable gentlemen are driven to such miserable shifts to furnish ammuni acute their warfare. The people of this country will never believe a charge so utterly unsubstantiated by a single proof, and that carries with it its own refutation. Nay, the gentlemen's constituent! will not beheve it, nor do they believe it themselves. If there be a single individual upon this Boor wl lieves this charge, then I can only say that there are stranger " things (not in heaven and earth only, but in this Hall" too,) than I have ever dreamed of in my philosophy."
But if this charge were even true, I hold, sir, that that would afford no suffiatnl ground to exclude California. Would you do injustice to the people of a State, and leave them to anarchy and confusion, simply because an officer ot the Government had been remiss or unf.uthtul in the performance of his duty? Is not her constitution republican in its form- Is there any tn in it repugnant to the principles of the Constitution of the United Stales r If not, air, I hold that vou cannot reject her. That constitution comes here with the sanction of the people, and the broad seal of her approval; and that, sir, should operate as an indisputable passport to her full, immediate
and cordial reception. .•»..»« ■ r .- ~r r- i.
Her convention was composed of men from all sections of the United States, and of natives or Cali- fornia. Sixteen Southern gentlemen, and ten Northern, if 1 mistake not, were ... that convention. They regarded the question of slavery as settled then, not only by the Ml Xican lav.- but, sir. tor aU time to come, by the character of the soil, the nature of the climate the pro ductiona . I the i '.•''.he habits and sentiments of the people, and, above all, by the immutable, interdict ol the lav* a of nature
MI amfthe'refore, for these reasons, in favor of the admission of California, with her present constitu- tion, and her present boundaries, irrespective of all and every other question and conai* raUOjn. And I deem it but right to say, if California, under the same circumstances, W< ra here with a r. cogn two or
slavery in her constitution, much as I would have regretted it, upon the same principles I shou ,ld 1 hove felt myself bound to vote for her admission, leaving the evil and responsibility to flow from it lo rest
"Treg^^theTemloS I have only to say, I am willing to adopt the same prio I fo-
ments 1 have been applying to California. I am willing, so far as New Max*
cernS to leave the settlement of all questions of local and d iff to the decs,,,, ot the
people themselves, who are to be affected by those laws and regulations. I take occasion to sa> , that ? fully endorse the views and sentiments so ably enforce! ami recommended in the message of the President of the United States, now under discussion.
I recognise there, sir, one of the sublimest principles upon which our free in9^Xse who Tdvo". not only the right, but the ability, of the people to govern themselves. I am one of those who advo-
cate this right, and believe in this ability in its fullest extent. Our system of territorial governments has not, in every instance, asserted ami maintained this right, but have sometimes assimilated them- selves to the colonial regulation of Great Britain. This resulted, perhaps, from the sparseness of popula- tion, and the nature and necessities of the case; but in regard to these Territories no such necessity exists ; but give them authority, but signify your assent, and by the meeting of your next session of Congress, tin y will present themselves, with their constitutions in their hands, and ready to take their stand as States in the ranks of this great and glorious Confederacy.
This I deem not only the best and most just policy in regard to the Territories themselves, and as tending to promote emigration and si ttlemenl there, by assuring people of the security of the law and the protection of their rights, but as calculated to allay excited and embittered feeling between different sections of our country. Here is a platform, a Democratic platform, too, upon which all may meet ; and peace, and harmony, and quiet be restored to the country.
I am not one of those who are alarmed for the safety of the Union. No excitement we can raise here, no conventions we can hold elsewhere, will accomplish this object. Attachment to this Union, the work of our fathers of the Revolution, has become a part of our nature, and is associated with all that we prize, and all that we expect, as a people and a nation. Politicians may prate glibly about it, and some restless, disappointed spirit may desire it; but its shield and protection, the assurance of its integrity and perpetuity, are found in the wisdom, the patriotism, and affections of twenty millions of freemen.
What objection, therefore, has any gentleman, and particularly any Southern gentleman, to this mode of disposing of the question ? I look upon this not as Whig or Democratic platform, not in- tended to give any advantage to either North or South, but to refer it where it may be properly and justly decided, and that, too, by those who will not only have the best means of judging properly in regard to the wants and necessities of the country, but who have also the greatest interest in adopting such a government as will be best adapted to their wants and condition, and such as will most effectu- ally secure them in the enjoyment " of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
My own views are, therefore, Mr. Chairman, opposed to the formation of any territorial govern- ments. I desire not only to leave this question, but all others which are of a local and municipal cha- racter, to the people who are to be affected by those laws and regulations. This is the great principle upon which our own Government rests; upon which our Declaration of Independence and our Consti- tution are founded. So far as I shall have any vote or any influence, I shall give it for upholding this great principle here and everywhere, now and for all time to come. I cannot consent, for one moment, to the proposition of the gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. Toombs,) that it is the duty of Congress to remove the impediment presented by the Mexican laws, and thus enable the South to carry their slaves into those free Territories. If the people of those Territories shall see proper, in the organiza- tion of their State constitutions or by their laws, to permit this, be it so ; and the evil and the respon- sibility shall rest with and upon them. For my own part I am for freedom, for liberty, in its widest and largest sense. And if I had the power to do it, without the violation of any moral or political ob- ligations, I would strike the shackles from every living human being upon the face of the earth, in every nation, in every clime, and of every color, until man, everywhere, should rise to the dignity of his na- ture and his destiny, and stand forth in the broad sunlight of Heaven, and in the words of the great Irish barrister, "redeemed, regenerated, and disenthralled by the irresistible genius of universal eman- cipation."
Mr. Crowell. I understand the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania to concede the power of Congress to exclude slavery from the newly acquired Territories. I would ask him, with his per- mission, to answer me, whether he is willing to vote for its exclusion in a bill organizing territorial governments.
Mr. Casey. I have argued, as the gentleman from Ohio has heard, at length, the question of the right — the constitutional right ; but I am now asserting and arguing the inherent and inalienable right of the people to make their own laws and adopt their own form of government.
Mr. Crowell. I wish to inquire whether the gentleman, conceding the right, does not admit and contend that it is the duty of Congress, as slavery is a moral and political evil, (as he states it to be,) to exclude it by legislative enactment.
Mr. Casey. I can only tell the gentleman from Ohio, what neither he nor any one else can dispute or disprove, that slavery is already excluded by the Mexican law — by the superior law of nature; and that the Wilmot proviso cannot more effectually exclude it than it is already done. Besides this, the Wilmot proviso would only continue to bind, so long as it should remain under territorial government. When it becomes a State, the people would have a full and perfect right, in the exercise of their sov- reignty, to establish and introduce slavery if they saw proper to do so. Ohio, the gentleman's own State, which was under the ordinance of 1787, could, any day, if her people desired it, establish sla- very within her borders. Of what benefit, therefore, can the proviso be to the Territories under these circumstances?
Mr. Crowell again interrupted, and said that in order to show that the gentleman was mistaken in supposing that the God of nature had so fortified this territory that slavery could not be introduced, he asked the gentleman's permission to have the clerk read an advertisement in "The Mississipnian," of the 6th March. ' '
Mr. Casey. — I cannot agree to yield the floor to the gentleman from Ohio for any such purpose. I wish my Bpeech to stand or fall upon its own merits 1 have not cited newspaper fragments to prove my arguments and fortify my positions, and do not wish to have them interlarded in my speech, as they arc not always regarded as good authority, and particularly some from that quarter.
[ agree, sir, with the gentleman from Tenm ne, Mr. William
gentlemen too often talk here, ir, for effect and fi l
and the South may be chargeable with it. For my own part, my information on i
mc in saying, thatl believe il ia thi
men have vied with each othei il bom< in di I
until they have rai i< d a fi i lin ; there among th(
ry out tlii- farcehere,to mak< me, and to induce
them to send them back to save th< i I J ith. .
These are my views, Bir, upon this qui itioo, and I claim for thi m no other m< rti the honest and settled convictions of my i wm mind, and the result of calm and di tion. That these distracting and disturbii . .yiwto
produce ami foster kind and fra • very part and ;
country, 1 most ardently hope and •hall had, not only Cali-
fornia ami New Mexico as Btars in - nstellation of States, but thai ■
add new gems to this galaxy o floryandol An. I that tins ... t will be
thronged with the population, the wealth, and thi ■ that shall contini
over us boundless prairies and fertile plains. Whenourfla it, and our empin
where the broad Atlantic laves our i
dash, and break, and di away. Indl baaed by the blood and
toil of the Revolution, ami endeared by a thousand ll '. aild our glonou.s
Constitution, the monument of our fother'swi dom and patriotiam, shall soil stand the admiration and the hope of the world; and its blessings and benefits d< ir children, and to then
ity, and to the millions who shall gather and I P»—
" Til the last syllabic of recorded time."
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
0 011 898 055 4 %
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
0 011 898 055 4
1 .«
*« •"!
i
•
-
-
if.
i i
■
i
-
4\i A A J A A A ,€ '$ A A A A A AAA ■;«* A A ■*/. '■* >* •
■ )
■
•
■
•
1! ■
-
-
' *
K* •
at 1
1
■
I
I
-
|
■ |
||
|
■ |
™ |
|
|
^^^M |
||
|
H ^H |
||
|
I |
'
I
;