13 Sir., I do not like, more than others, a geographical line between Freedom and Slavery. But it is because I would have, if it were possible, all our territory free. Since that cannot be, a line of division is indispensable; and any line is a geographical line. The honorable and very acute Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Badger] has wooed us most persuasively to waive our objections to the new principle, as it is called, of non-intervention, by assuring us that the slaveholder can only use slave labor where the soils and climates favor the culture of tobacco, cotton, rice, and sugar. To which I reply : None of these find congenial soils or climates at the sources of the Mississippi, or in the valley of the Rocky Mountains. Why, then, does he want to remove the inhibition there ? ’ But again: That Senator reproduces a pleasing fiction of the character of slavery from the Jewish history, and asks, Why not allow the modern patriarchs to go into new regions with their slaves, as their ancient prototypes did, to make them more comfortable and happy ? ??nd he tells us, at the same time, that this indulgence will not increase the number of slaves. I reply by asking, first, Whether slavery has gained or lost strength by the diffusion of it over a larger surface than it formerly covered? Will the Senator answer that? Secondly, I admire the simplicity of the patriarchal times. But they nevertheless exhibited some peculiar institutions quite incongruous with modern Republicanism,not to say Christianity, namely, that of a latitude of construction of the marriage contract, which has been carried by one class of so-called patriarchs into Utah. Certainly, no one would desire to extend that peculiar institution into Nebraska. Thirdly, slaveholders have also a peculiar institution, which makes them political patriarchs. They reckon five of their slaves as equal to three freemen in forming the basis of Federal representation. If these patriarchs insist upon carrying their institution into new regions, north of 36 deg. 30 min., I respectfully submit, that they ought to reassume the modesty of their Jewish predecessors, and relinquish this political feature of the system they thus seekto extend. Will they do that? Some Senators have revived the argument that the Missouri Compromise'was unconstitutional. But it is one of the peculiarities of compromises, that constitutional objections, like all others, are buried under them by those who make and ratify them, for the obvious reason that the parties at once waive them, and receive equivalents. Certainly, the slaveholding States, which waived their constitutional objections against the Compromise of 1820, and accepted equivalents therefor, cannot be allowed to revive and offer them now as a reason for refusing to the non-slaveholding States their rights under that Compromise, without first restoring the equivalents which they received on condition of surrendering their constitutional objections.' For argument’s sake, however, let this reply be waived, and let us look at this constitutional objection. You say that the exclusion of slavery by the Missouri Compromise reaches through and beyond the existence of the region organized as a Territory, and prohibits slavery forever, even in the States to be organized out of such Territory, while, on the contrary, the States, when admitted, will be sovereign, and must have exclusive jurisdiction over slavery for themselves. Let this, too, be granted. But Congress, according to the Constitution, “ may admit new States.” If Congress may admit, then Congress may also refuse to admit— that is to say, may reject new States. The greater includes the less; therefore. Congress may admit, on condition that the States shall exclude slavery. If such a condition should bp accepted, would it not be binding ? It is by no means necessary, on this occasion, to follow the argument further to the question, whether such a condition is in conflict with the constitutional provision, that the new States received shall be admitted on an equal footing with the original States, because, in this case, and at present, the question relates not to the admission of a State, but to the organization of a.Territory, and the exclusion of slavery within the Territory while its status as a Territory shall continue, and no further. Congress has power to exclude slavery in Territories, if they have any power to create, control, or govern Territories at all, for this simple reason : that find the authority of Congress over the Territories wherever you may, there you find no exception from that general authority in favor of slavery. If Congress has no authority over slavery in the Territories, it has none in the District of Columbia. If, then, you abolish a law of Freedom in Nebraska, in order to establish a new policy of abnegation, then -true consistency requires that you shall also abolish the Slavery laws in the District of Columbia, and submit the question of the toleration of slavery within the District to its inhabitants. If you reply, that the District of Columbia has no local or Territorial Legislature, then I rejoin, so also has not Nebraska, and so also has not Kansas. You are calling a Territorial Legislature into existence in. Nebraska, and another in Kansas, to assume the jurisdiction on the subject of slavery, which you renounce. Then consistency demands that you call into existence a Territorial Legislature in tfie District of Columbia, to assume the jurisdiction here, which you -must also renounce. Will you do this? We shall see. To come closer to the question : What is this principle of abnegating National authority, on the subject of slavery, in favor of the People ? Do you abnegate all authority, whatever, in the Territories ? Not at all; you abnegate only authority over slavery there. Do you abnegate 7^- 70776
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=