University of South Carolina Libraries
miction, and regard, with abhorence, the ef-1 r forts that are made by others, who have no I* interest whatever in the district, to*?fiect it., f It is impossible, therefore, thai any such in-, I terfcrence on the part of Congress could be ; < justified, or even paliaicd, oil the ground that, t ' it was sought or desired by those who are j t alone interested in the subject. If. there-! 1 lore, Congress were to interfere with this . 1 description of property against the consent;; ? of the people of the District, your committee . t fed bound to say, that, it would be as gross < ii breach ofpublic faith, and as outrageous 1 5in infraction of private rights, as it would j1 have been if such interference had been j i committed by tlie States of which the Dis- f >. i strict was formerly a part, supposing that it 1 never h id been ceded to the United States. J; Yoxr committee will here anticipate an , < objection which may be urged against this '! reasoning. and these conclusions. They i have shown that the powers of Congress over tliis District divide themselves into two ' < classes, nation d and local; that in reference j < *- -'l*? " " '>" nrt'i/m f rrni ( HI lllV Kit ill ;j ? i.jij UV/iUUI VI vv??.r.?. 7 ; should be governed by the interest, of the | i who';4 country, so far as they, no; connect- j <:d with the branches of the Fe leral (iov? ] i eminent iocated within the District; that< < in refctvnee to the latter, its powers are. and i i 'its action should be, tiiosc of a local and j i municipal legislature, extending its paternal j < care and protection over the citizens de- ;: pendent upon, an 1 subjected to, this 1 brand) of its authority; that in the exorcise j I -of its powers, the safest stand in reference i to slavery is, what would the States to < which the District originally belonged, and ^ I of which its citizens were originally citizens. i have doiie in case their jurisdiction had j '< never been transferred to Congress; and I ^ , - O 7 that those Staters would certainly not have interfered with the institution of slavery in j j the District, hail the power to do so remain-! cd with them. The objection anticipated . i is, that the States in question have pursued 1 an unwise policy as to themselves, and that ' 1 heir having done so should not !...ve bound ?' Congress, as the local legislature of the 1 j District, to a similar policy in relation to its J' government. To this, however, your com- : miitee consider it perfectly conclusive to t reply, that under our institutions, tiiat people ; i is t!u best governed, which is governed j innr?r?in*ilriiiCf> with its mvn hnliiN. ill. I t 'rests, Juki wishes ; that the policy hitherto pursued by Congress in reference to slavery j within the District, your committee have { every reason to believe, has been in perfect conformity with the wishes and interests ol i " the citizens concerned; arid that it will be j ^ time enough lor Congress, acting as the j j local legislature of the District, and in that capacity bound to consult the governed, as j the regulators of its action, to mo *c in any ( p nutter relating to their private interests and j rig!its. v.-'aea they themselves shall ask such _ M- ? ' ? I | .mevrnimt. t There is another consideration connected r with this part of the argument, which your nommittee think worthy of attention. It is ( tins: {hut there is no Jaw in the District pro- r hibiting the master from manumitting his ! j *iii%i;9y HUH iw may ut? ell ills uwift uij- ^ esetion, aad without incurring any re- ; sponsibility whatever. Certain it is that j,, no such law has boon passed by Congress, j j. The citizens of the District, therefore have j c jk) necessity for the aid of Congress, should c they wish the abolition of slavery among j, them. They have only to exercise an ex- c isting right, and their wish will bo nccom- j n plished. an C there bo more decisive j j evidence, then, that they do not wish the f abolition of slavery) th'an that it continues i 'c to exist among tlicm, or can any one desire 1 v more conclusive proof that any attempt by ; c Congress to effect this object by the force j [ of law would be an interference with the ! t rights of private property, against the wishes t and consent of those concerned, and for j 1 none of the purposes for which Congress is i c authorized by the constitution to take private {t property for public use ? t 1 Icnce, your committee believe they have c proved, beyond the power of contradiction, c that an. interference bv Congress with sla- s very in the District of Columbia would be a \ c violation of the public faith?of the faith j c roposod in Congress by the States which : , ceded the territory to the Federal Govern-; j nrent, so fir as the rights and interests of j, these citizens residing .within the ceded tcr- < r ritory are concerned. ! (. Your committee will now* consider this j d proposition in reference to ihc interests of j r .1 ~r u 1 \r- 1 _ I.iu ouuvs ui .?xui > ianu uuu ? iigiinu. j. ;i were slave ho! ding States at the time they |made their cession, and thev arc so still, ii They entirely surround this District, from j e which they are only separated upon all sides r by imaginary lines. They made the ces- I sion for the great national objects which ( have been already pointed out, and they t; made it from motives of patriotism alone, i J; and without any compensation from the j ti Federal Government for the surrender of i tj juris diction over commanding positions in (ii l>oth States. The surrender was made for j ti purposes deemed sufficiently important, by j s all the original Sta*es, to be provided for in I v the constitution of the United States; and ? c it was made in conformity with that pro- j t vision of the constitution. It is surely un- t v necessary, after this statement of facts, to 111 undertake to show that those patriotic States j 1 made this cession for purposes of good to j I the Union, and consequently to themselves, f< .001 not for purposes of evil to themselves, j tl and consequently to the Union; and that' t the Government of the United States ae- j s ,ccptcd the cession for the same good, and s . .not for evil, purposes. I If, then, k can be demonstrated that the } abolitiou of slavery in the District of Co- ! 11 dumbia would produce evil, and not good, to * ,thc States that made the cession, the ( conclusion is iucyitable that such an act on t the part of Congress w/Biild be a violation d of the faith reposed in it by those States. r To all to whom this is not perfectly palpable d without an argument, the following con- c siderafions are presented : s It* has been already said that the States a of Maryland and Virginia surround the r District It has also been shown that, ih t reference to s'avnrv v;:'hk) tV. District, ?hc' L'lations of (Jongrcs are entirely those of a ?> >cal legislature, and that its .action there- L are, in this capacity, should be governed \ >v the same reasons which would have r governed tliosc States themselves in relation r n this subject, if their jurisdiction over this c' erritorv had never been surrendered. f ^et us suppose, then, that this jurisdiction j ^ tad never boon surrendered by Maryland j ? tnd V irginia, and that it was now proposed [ liat they should abolish slavery, and rclin- j , juisli ail power of legislation over free ! ^ )J icks, within the portions of those States ! ( vhich constitute the District of Columbia, j s etaining their respective institutions of slavery in all the remaining portions ot their ^ erritorv, Who is there that would not be j imazed at tho folly of such an actWho j j Iocs not see that such a step would ncces- ! r sarilv produce discontent .and insurrections , r n the remaining portions of those States 1 j IV hp does not perceive that unJcr such j r jircumstances the District woulJ constitute j it once .1 neutral ground, upon which hosts r )f free blacks, fugitive slaves, and incendaries, would lie assembled in the work 01 j jcncral abolitionism; and that from such a nagazinc r>C evil, every conceivable mis- ' :hicf would be spread through the surroundi . ^ , . | ng country, with almost the rapidity oi the ! noycnicnts of the atmosphere? Surely no )nc can doubt the certainty of the con- ^ ;cqucn;iaj evils in the case supposed. IIow j' lien can anv doubt or deny the dangers in { he case before us ? The territory is the ! >amo; it is surrounded bv the same portions I >f slavcholding States ; and the only dif- j 1 orence is, that in the case supposed, the j ' iboiition would be the work of State iuthorities. wliile. in the other, it is sought 1 o accomplish it by the authority of Con- j' ;ivss. The condition of tilings before and j' ifrerit is done, is the same in both cases, i md the opportunities for mischief, in case ' he work be accomplished, are equal in both. 1 J in it be necessary to say more, to establish ! lie position, that any interference with slavery in the District of Columbia, on the ' >art of Congress, would be a violation of ! he public faith, the faith reposed in Con- ' jress by those States, and without which ' hoy never could have been induced to have < nadc thai cession ? ' It oniy remains under this he id to show (( hat Congress could not interfere with slave y in the District of Columbia, without a vi- J )Iat'o:i ofthe public faith, in reference to the ^ ikivchokiing States generally, as well as to he States of Virginia and Maryland. The irovision in the constitution authorizing ^ congress to accept the cession of a tcrrito1 r v tor a scat of the Federal Government, ind to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over } r, was as general and universal ns any other J >rovision in that instrument. In its nationil objects all the States were equally inte- r csted, and so fir as there was any danger r hat the powers of local legislation confer- c cd on Congress might interfere with, or in- 11 ufiouslv affect, the institutions of the vari- I >us Stales, each State possessed an inte- s est proportioned to the probable danger to f :s?lf. As far as your committee know or F i el i eve, however, no apprehension of an in- 1 erfercnce on the subject of domestic slave- ' y was entertained in any quarter, or ex- ? ressed by any statesman of the day. All V xamination of the commentaries on the a onstitution will show that various apprc- ^ ensions were entertained, as to the powers y onferrcd on Congress, by this clause, such h s that privileged classes of society might n C created within the District; that a stand- c lg army, dangerous to the liberties of the if .-v?11-V* *.?- Ua o?i/l r-ncfninArl A I' .1.111 \ , lillj^ill U>J UlgllllitiWl UliU OUOlUlllvu w rhlun it, and tlic like; but not a suggestion an bo found that, under the local powers to a >c conferred, any attempt would be made j ti ) interfere with the nrivate rights of the ci- i 1; ? J izens who might be embraced within the ! p )istrict, or to disturb, or change, directly, | tl t hy consequence, the municipal institu- j v ions ofthe States, or that the subject of do. | ti nestic slavery, as it existed in the States, o ould be in anywise involved in the propos- e d cession. At that tim^, all the States held laves. Many of them have since, by their v \vn independent action, without influence a r interference from the Federal Govern- (< tent, or from their sister States, effected, w 1 their own time and way, the work of e- s, inucipation; otlicrs of the original States, c amain as they were a; the time ofthe adop- j j, on ofthe constitution, in reference to this j ^ oscription of property, and several new ; j, icmbers have been admitted into the Union ! t| s slavcholdins States. All the States which ' ? O i ^ ave helJ, or now hold, slave property, have j .1 variably considered the institution as one -j xclusively subject to State authority, and j ^ ot to be affected, directly or indirectly, by ( ^ Yderal interference. The practice of the ! j( lovernment, as well as its theory, lias csiblishcd this doctrine, and the action of the P Itates, in retaining or abolishing the instiition at plca^ro, has conformed entirely to lis principle. Now the subject of Federal i itcrlercncc has become one of some ag^lta- v on, and Congress is solicited to adopt niea- P urcs in relation to the District of Columbia, P rhich have been shown to be most danger, j 0 us and destructive to the security and in- j c crests of the two. slaveholding States by ,'hich it was ceded to the Federal Govern- " icnt. Your committee will not trouble the louse to prove, that any measure of the ^ Ydcral Legislature which would have this P ;ndcncy in those two States, would, from a ie very necessity of the case, and the unity f the interest wherever it exists, have the P ame tendency, measurably, in all the other la vcholding members of the Union. This P osition is too plain for argument. If, *1 ien, all the States were equally interested i the national objects for which this terri- P >ry was ceded as the scat of the Federal *] Jovernnicnt: if that cession was designed y the framers of the constitution, to enurc to the benefit of the whole Confcde- li acy, and was made in furtherance of that esign; and if Congress, contrary to the f< bvicus intent and spirit of the cession, ^ hall do an act not required J^y the nation- o I objects contemplated by it, but directly h epugnant to the interests and wishes of * lie citizens of the ceded territory, and cal- : lafed to disturb 'he peace. r.r.d en dun [er *lic interests, of the slavcliolding mem- | >ers of the Union, such an act must be in delation of the public faith; of the faith j eposed in Congress by the States that ' nade the cession, and which would be leeply injured bv such an exercise of' wwer under it; and also of the faith rcpos- I :d in that body by all the States, inasmuch is no independent State in the Union can >c injured in its peace, or its rightful inte- j csts, by the action of the Federal Go ernmcnt, without a corresponding injury o every member of the confederated : States. ! Your committee have already shown hat an interference with slavery in the district of Columbia, would involve a vio- j ation of the public faith, as regards the ; i<rhts and interests of the citizens thereof. They recur to this topic, however., on ac ount of its importance,*5nd ior the purlose of putting it in another light, and, as lihy consider, upon unanswerable ground, riicy arc aware that, under the constilu- ; win * Cntiorrncc nnsspss "exclusive lejris- 1 ^ I # . " . G i ution'' over the aforesaid District; hut the lower of legislation was given to be exer- ; riscd for beneficial purposes only, and can- j tot, therefore, be exercised, consistently ! vith public faith, for any object that is at j ,var with the great principles upon which ; :hc Government itself is founded. The constitution, to be properly understood, j mist he taken as a whole. Wherever a j particular power is granted, the extent to i ivhich it may be carried can only be inferred from other provisions by which it may do regulated or restrained. The constitu- i tion, while it confers upon Congress ex- j elusive legislation within this District, , Joes not, and could not, confer unlimited or despotic authority over it. It conld confer no power contrary to the funda- | mental principles of the constitution itself, and the essential and unalienable rights of ^ " ? * rt %> r. *TU? frt l??#Ttclofn Y I lll'l lUlllJ YKI/iUII^ X III. I l^lli III it^Miuii. , therefore, (to make ilic constitution consistent with itself,) is evidently qualified i by the provision that "no man shall be icprivcd of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,"t and various o:hcrs of a similar charaetcr. W e lay it [ Jovn as a rule, that no Government can j lo any tiling directly repugnant to the , principles of natural justice and of the so- 1 :ial compact. It would be totally subver- t ?ivc of all the purposes for which govemnent is instituted. Vattlc says: "The | jrcat end of civil society is, whatever con- ! titutes happiness with the peaceful pos- j ;cssion of property." No republican i vould tolerate that a man should bo pun- [ shed, by a special statute, for an act not , cgally punishable at the time of its com- j nission. No republiccin could approvo a- \ ly system of legislation by which private ; ontracts, lawfully made, should he dec- ; arcd null and void, or by which the pro- ; arty of an individual, lawfully acquired, hould be arbitrarily wrested from him by he high hand of power. But these great principles are not left for their support to he natural feelings of the human heart,-or j o the mere gentry! spirit of republican ovemmenf. They are expressly incoriorated in the constitution, and they have Iso been recognised and insisted on, by lie Supreme Court of the United States, rhich lays down the following sound and icontrovertible doctrine: "There are acts rhich the Federal or State Legislatures annotdo, without exceeding their author:y. There are certain vital principles in ur free republican Government, which rill determine and overrule an apparent nd llagrant abuse of legislative power; as d authorize manifest injustice by positive xw, or to take away that security for crsonal liberty or private property, for lie protection whereof the Government as established. An act ot I he legislate, contrary to the great first principle f the social compact, cannot be considerd a rightful exercise of legislative null or it y. The obligation of a law, in Goernments established on express compact, nd on republican principles, must be detmincd by the nature of the power on 'hicli it is founded. A few instances will nfiice to explain. A law that punished a itizen for an innocent action, or that was I 1 violation of an existing law; a law that i estroys or impairs the obligation of the j nvlul private contracts of citizens; a law 1 lat makes, a man a judge in his own case; j r a law that takes property from A. and j ives it to B. It is against all reason and | jstice for a people to entrust a legislature j -ith such powers, and therefore it cannot j e presumed that they have done it. The jgislature may enjoin or permit, forbid or j unish; they may declare new crimes, and stablish rules of conduct for future cases; ut they cannot change innocence into i uiit, or punish innocence as a crime, or iolate the rights of an antecedent lawful riVate contract, or the right of private I roperty. To maintain that our Federal r State Legislatures possess such powers, vcn if they had not been expressly res- j aincd, would be a political heresy, altoether inadmissible in our free republican rovcrnmcnty% Now, every principle ere affirmed by the court, applies to, and rotects, the people ofthis District, as well s the people of the States. The inhabitnts of this District are a part of the peole of the United States. Every right and iterest secured by the constitution of the eople of the States, is equally secured to lie people of the District. Congress can berefore do no act affecting property or erson, in relation to this District, which : is prohibited to do in relation to the ciizens of the States, without a direct violaion of the public faith. For instance, it ; a well settled constitutional principle, bat "private property shall not be taken 3r public use, withoutjust compensation." Jow the true meaning ofthis provision' bviously is, that private property shall j e taken onlv for public use, but shall not, " i * Arlic!e I, section 8. \ + Amendments to the Constitution, or?. ' iVi'.ljs's Ke*>. vo!. 3 n. 388; ? > bo taken, cvcnilicn, without adequate re- S muncration. It is evident, liowever, in P reference to slavery, either that the <io- ? vcrr.nient would use the slaves, or that it would not. If it would use them, tiien tlicv "would not be emancipated; and it J would be an idle mockery to talk of the freedom of those who would only cease to ? be private, to become public, s'aves. If !' it would not use them, then how could it ! be said that they were taken for the publie use, consistently with the provision just recited? But even if they could be taken ? without reference to public use they could 11 not be taken without just compensation. lt It is exceedingly questionable, however, v whether Congress could legally apply the public revenue to such an object, even ^ with the consent of the owners of the g slaves. As to emancipation without their consent, and without just compensation, v your committee will not stop to consider v it. It could not bear examination. lion- ? or, humanity, policy, all forbid it. It is ^ manifest, then, from all the considerations herein stated, (and there are others equal- s Iv forcible that might be urged) that Con- ^ gross could not abolish slavery in the Dis- [ trict of Columbia, without a violation of s the public faith. c Your committee will only add one or r, two reflections upon this interesting point, r What is the meaning of the declaration c adopted bv the House, in relation to the 4 District of Columbia? Is it not, that Con- r gross cannot and will not do an act which ? it has solemnly proclaimed to involve a vi- i olation on the public faith? Docs it not s afford every security to the South which it t i is in the power of the Federal Govern- < nicnt to afford? Is it not tantamount, in * I its binding obligation upon the Govern- 1 ! men/, to a positive declaration, thatf tic a- * ! botition of slavery in the District of Co- t | lumbia would be unconstitutional? Nay, is 1 j it not c\cn more efficacious in point offact? t Constitutional provisions arc matters of con- L struction. The opinion of one House, up- 5 on an abstract controverted point, may be * overruled and reversed by another. But c when Congress has solemnly declared that 1 a particular act would he a violation of the * public faith, is it to bo supposed that it * would ever violate a pledge thus given to ' the country? Can any abolitionist expect f it? Need any citizen of a slave State fear it? t What is public faith but the honor of the t Government? "Why are treaties regarded as sacred and inviolable? Why, but be- f cause thev involve the pledge, and depend 1 upon the sanctity ofthe national faith? Why ^ arc all compacts or promises made by Go- ^ vernmcnts held to be irrevocably binding? d Why, but because thev cannot break them j11 -,J. . ... 1.1 without committing pertidy, and destroying 11 all confidence in their justice and integrity? d Surely then, your committee may say with 0 the utmost confidence, (and the sentiment ^ will be ratified by every American heart) 0 that the declaration now promulged in rcla- S tion to this subject, will not be departed from 11 by any succeeding legislature, except under ri circumstances (should any such ever arise in the progress of our country) in which a 0 departure from it would not be regarded by the slavcholding States themselves, as a wanton or arbitrary infraction of the public ^ faith! ^ Your committee arc further instructed to report, that, in the opinion of this House, ^ Congress ought not to interfere in anv way n with slaver}* in the District of Columbia? ^ 2dl^. Because it would be unwise and C impolitic* ^ | It will be palpable to the rninds of all, that j ^ if the committee have succeeded in csta- iy Llishing, as they think they have, that any Nv such interference on the part of Congress ^ would be a violation of the public faith, it ) would be a work of supererogation to at- !r tempt to show, that such an act would be 11 unwise and impolitic: as there may be some, " however, who may not agree with them in P their arguments or conclusions upon that point, they feel bound, under the instruc- tr tion of the House, te oiler a few suggestions s< under this head. The Federal Government was the crea- a tion of the States of the Confederacy, and tc the great objects of its creation and organi- u zation "were to form a more perfect union,! ? establish justice, insure domestic tranquilli-1 ~ ty, and provide for the common defence and I " general welfare." j ?i Apply these principles, then, to an inter- j fercncc by Congress with slavery in the Dis- j trict of Columbia. Such action, to be po-' aj Iitic, must be in accordance with some one f a of those great objects; and it will be the duty of the committee, in as concise a man- 31 ncr as possible, to show that it would not be in accordance with cither of them. cr First, then, as to the District itself. It has already been shown, that any interference, unsolicited by the inhabitants of l, the District, cannot "establish justice," or j promote the cause of justice within it, but ^' directly tlie reverse. IS o greater degree of slavery exist here now, than did exist when 1 the constitution was adopted, and then the inhabitants of the District were citizens of * the States of Maryland and Virginia, and | had a voice in the adoption of that instru-1 ^ ment. Surely their subsequent transfer to i ^ the jurisdiction of Congress, made in con- ^ formity with that constitution, could not ^ deprive them of the protection to which they jj were entitled by these great leading princi- jt pies of it. On the contrary, they had every right to expect that Congress would k'establish justice," as to them, in strict compli- t ance with the great charter under which it! acted, and by which it is forbidden to inter fere with their rights of private properly, without their consent, or in any way to affect J}, injuriously their domestic institutions. Of these institutions, slavery was, and is, the most tmporlant; and any attempt on the part SL of Congress, acting as a local Legislature aj_ of the District, to abolish it, would not only ^ be impolitic, but an act of gross injustice m and oppression. Secondly, as to tiie States of the Union. w] Mere again, your committee have but to _c refer to their former remarks, to show that _ the abolition of slavery in the District wcri'd r.ot "visti-V-fi j'isrice," bu: work ycat injustice, to the surrounding States in articular, and to all the slave States in cneral, and in a degree proportioned to !icir proximity to the District, and to the in. luence upon the institution ef slavery in tie Union,of such action on.the part .of Congress. They have also shown, that tlie bolition of slavery here, so far from tendig to " ensure domestic tranquillity," would avc a direct tendency to produce domestic iscord and violence, and servile war, in all lie slavcholding States. As these conequenccs, then, would follow sucli action 1 reference to the States, your committee iced not say, that, instead of providing for the common defence by it" Congress rould be called upon " to provide for the ommon defence" in consequence of it, and o an extent which cannot now he foreseen, ieeing, then, that the American Confederacy ? t' ?J r..? ?r I kua luiiiiuu iui kuw uujwui ui juv i iding for " the common defence and genera] j welfare," it follows, ncccsssarily? that Con- i ;ress is not only restrained from the com-' nission of my act by which tliesc objects nay be frustrated, but that it is bound to ustnin and promote them. The same provision of the constitution which requires t to call out the militia to " suppress inurrections," unquestionably imposes the :orrcs[>onding obligation upon it, to commit io act by which an insurrectionary spirit nay be excited. The same provision which j tnjoins it 011 the Federal Government, to j f guaranty to each State a republican form : >f Government, and to aid and protect each j state against domestic violence,*'* evidently j mplics the correlative obligation to take no ; ;tep, of which the direct and inevitable i endency would be to overthrow the State Governments, and to involve them in wide yrcad scenes of misery and desolation, n one word, if it be the duty of Congress, ts it most clearly is, to support and preserve he constitution and the Union, then it is mnifest, that it is bound to avoid the adopion of any legislation which may lead to heir destruction. Your committee con u1a?? tlinon nAcitiAnc aUimaiic %>aaiiim ?ruci Liiv>ovv i^oniuiio u/u \juy IUUO ?u ILI|UUV^ irgument or illustration: They consider it :qually manifest, that any attempt to aboish slavery in the District, would necessarily end to the deplorable consequences to which hey have adverted. Congress, therefore, s bound, by every principle of duty which brbids it to interfere with slaver)' in any of he States, to abstain from any similar inorforcnce in the District of Columbia. Your commi'tec have r'ready adverted to he evils that would necessarily result to lie surrounding States, and to the slave Ifntes ornnnrnllv. from nnv interference bv 0 __.v.?J -J Congress with tho nisitution of slavery in | lie District of Columbia. The nature and lagnitudcof those evils, however, require,; liat they should be exhibited more fully and j istinctly. The question is, whether slavery j light to be abolished in tlio District of' Columbia? Now suppose the affirmative | f this proposition were sustained by Con- j ;ross, what would jt be but indirect legisla- i on, or rather interference, as regards the ' ighfs and property of the southern States, tnd can any one imagine thai such a state f things woul 1 bo patiently borne? But" liis is not all: nay, it is not hal? the evil liat would follow. Could slavery be aboslicd in the District without leading directly I ud inevitably to insubordination aod revolt j irougliout the South ? And can any one ; esire to produce such results ? _ Is there a uin who has forgotten the his tor}" of St. ! loniingo, or the insurgent attempts at harleston, or the tragical scenes at Southmpton! or the recent and lamentable ocurrencos in the States of Louisiana and Iississippi ? or is there an individual who ould wish thctn repeated, and extended j irougliout tlie entire region of the Sonth ? i ^hv,tlicn, will infatuated individuals persist j * ? i ? i i pressing a scncmc, wmcn 13 not oniy : npracticablo, as regards the States, but aught with evil to the very objects it is roposed to benefit? True philanthropy 'ould avoid this subject, seeing the disaction it creates, and the dreadful con;quenccs it involves. It would leare it to lose whom it most concerns, and who alone re competent to act upon it. It would trust ) time and the gradual operation of causes hich may arise of themselves, but which an neither be produced, nor hastened by >reign interference, or the power of this lovernment. Why then, your committee irnestly repeat, why urge a measure which clearly impracticable in itself, which none ut the slaveholding States have a right to :t on, and which has increased, and will ways increase, the hardships and restraints f those for whose imaginary benefit they e waging this cruel and fanatical crusade? Wc have said hat tthe scheme of general nancip&tion is impracticable. The slight;t reflection must satisfy every candid ind of the truth of this assertion. Admitting that thO Federal Government id a right to act upon tins matter, which it earlv has not, it certainly never could :hicvc such an operation without full cominsation to the owners. And what would obably be the amount required ? The I jgregatc value or all that species of pro:rty is not less probably than four hundred | illions of dollars! And how could such 1 amount be raised ? Will the people of is country ever consent to the imposition * oppressive taxes, that the proceeds may j ) applied to tho purchase of slayes ? The ea is preposterous; and not ocdy that, but ' is susceptible of demonstration, that even J an annual appropriation of ten millions ere actually applied to the purchase and j | a'nsportation of slaves, the whole number i ould not be sensibly diminished at the ex- ; j ration of half a century, from the natural j owth and multiplication of the race, urthen the Treasury as we might,it would ill be an endless expense and an intermin>le work. And this view of the subject 1 irely is sufficient of itself to prove, that of 1 I the schemes ever projected by fanaticism ' e idea of universal emancipation is the ost visionary and impracticable. 1 But even if the scheme were practicable, ( hat would be gained by effecting it ? Sup- 1 >se that Congress could emancipate all the 1 * Con. art. I. see. 8. ' * A::. I. ?<~\ 4. ( slaves in the Union, is such a result desirable? This question is addressed to the $6ber sense of the people of America. Would < it Iw politic or advantageous? W?dd it j contribute lo the wealth, or grandeur, or ' happiness of our country? On the contrary, would it not produce consequences directly the reverse ? Are not the slaves unfit for freedom: notoriously ignorant, servile, and depraved? and would -any rational man have them mstaneot?ly^i?Mfornicd into freemen, with all the rights and privileges of American ?it?ens? Arethey capable of understanding correctly the nature of our Government, or exercising judiciously a single political right or privilege? Nay, would they even be capable of earning their own livelihood, or rearing their familiesand independently by their own ingenuity and industry"! What then would follow "from their libera; tion, but the most deplorable state of * j society, with which any civilized countrywas ever cursed ? How would vice and immorality, and licentiousness, overrun , the land? How many jails and penitcn: tiarics, that now seldom hold a prisoner, l ivmiM lm rmwdpd to suffocation ? IT..?v " W. V ?? ? ? AtUI* many fertile fields, that now yield regular I and abundant harvests, would lie tmoc- >-? cupied and desolate ? How would the ! foreign commerce of the south decline and | disappear? How many thousands ot ' \ seamen, of whom southern agriculture rs the very life, would be driven for support to foreign countries! And how largo a portion of the federal revenue, derived from foreign commodities exchanged for ' southern products, would be lost forever to this Government! And, in addition to j all this, what would be the condition of j southern society were all the slaves eman| cipated ? Would the whites consent that ' the blacks should be placed upon a. full footing of equality with them? Unquestionably not! Either the one class or the other would be forced to emigrate, anfl. in flilhnr mco thn ivKaIo rmri/ui rtf ! the south would be a scene of poverty and ruin. Or, what is still more probable, the blacks would every where be driven* before the whites, as the Indians liave been, until they were exterminated from I the earth. And surely it is unnecessary to remark, that decay and desolation could * : not break down the south, without producing a corresponding depression upon | the wealth and enterprise of the northernStates. And here let us ask, too, - what would be the coudition of the non-slaveliolding States themselves, as regards the blacks? Arc they prepared to receive s ' myriads of negroes, and place them uponan equality with tho free white laborersand mechanics, who constitute tbeir pride and strength? Will the new States consent that their territory shall be occupied by | negroes, iustcad of the enterprising, intelligent, and patriotic white population, which is daily seeking their borders from, other portions of the Union? Shall the yeomanry of jhose States be surrounded by thousandsof such beings, and the white laborer forced into competition and as- ' % sociation with them ? Arc they to enjoy the same civil and political privileges as . the free w hite citizens of the north and west, aud to be admitted into the social circle as their friends and companions Nothing less than all this will constitute nnfhaa/1 /vm nn/1 41 in nrinninlna |;V;IIL VI iiucuwui, a uu IUV |ruuwi|'ivf w maintained by those win) advocate emancipation would, if carried out, necessarily produce this slate of things! Yetv. who believes that it would be tolerated for ft moment ? Already iiave laws been passed . in sevenil of the non-slaveholding States to exclude frfce blacks from a settlement within their limits; and a prospect of genera! and immediate abolition would compel them, in self-defence, to resort -to a system of measures much more rigorous and effective than any which have yet been adopted. Driven from the sooth* then, the blacks would find no placo of refuge in the north; and, as before remarked-, utter extermination would be the . rr i .f proretuie, ii noi inc iiicviucdic, iaie ui witr whole race. Where is the citizen then, that can Jesrre such results T Where theAmerican who can contemplate then? without emotion ? Where the abolitionist that will not pause, in view of the direful consequences of his scheme, both to the whites and the blacks, to the north and the south, and to the whole Union at large? Your committe deem it their duty to say that in their opinion the people of the South" haw been very unjustly censured in reference to slaverv. It is not their purpose, however, to defend them. Their character, as men and citizens, needs no vindication from us. Wherever it is known it speak* for itself, nor would any wantonly traduce it, but those assassins olreputation, who are also willing to be the destroyer* of life. Exaggerated pictures have been drawn of .? ?' the hardships of the slave, and every effort made to malign the south, and to enlist against it both the religious and political feelii?g of the north. Your committee cannot . too strongly express their unanimous and unqualified disapprobation of ail such movements. The constitution, under wh&i we live, was framed by our common ancestors, to Drcserve the liberty aod iadpfMndenoe a chieved by their united efforts in fbe coon* cil and the field. In aQ our contests with foreign enemies, the south has exhibited an un wavering attachment to the common ?ause. Where is t#e spot of which Americans are prouder than the plains of Yorkown? Or, when was Britain more humWed, or America more honored, than by the ir ictorv of New Orleans? All our history, from the revolution down, attests the high, and uniform, and devoted, patriotism of the south. Her domestic institutions are her own. They were brought into the Union with her, and secured by the compact which makes us one people: and who would sow dissensions among members of the same [Treat political family, by assailing tlic institutions, and impugning the character of fho 21'tizcns of the south, should be regarded as an enemy to the peace and prosperity of pi:r ommon country. -