10 enough to get the floor at the expiration of the gentleman’s hour, and therefore will not press my inquiries now on this interesting point. Mr. STEPHENS. Now, gir, just here I wish to say a word more about “ that time-honored compact of our fathers,” which it is .said has been violated. Mr. Speaker, f say that the fathers who made this Republic, from the beginning of it—from the date of the Constitution and up to 1820, never in a single instance exercised the power of excluding the migration of slaves from any of the States of this Union to the common territory. The gentleman now claims to follow the fathers of the Republic. Well, I suppose General Washington, Mr. Madison, and Mr. Jefferson, are as eminently entitled as any others to occupy that position. Mr. Jefferson especially is often quoted by those holding seats on this side of the House. Mr. Jefferson, it is said, was against slavery. * I grant that. But how ? Mr. Jefferson was in favor of every State retaining and exercising jurisdiction over the subject for itself. | Mr. Jefferson wms himself opposed to the passage of'that restriction in 1820, now called a time-honored compact. I do not care as to what his abstract opinions were. I believe he was for providing for the gradual abolition of slavery in Virginia. But his plan was for thepeople of Virginia to do it for themselves,‘without any interference from abroad or influence from thid Government— I mean after the present Constitution was formed and adopted. I have Mr. Jefferson’s sentiments here before me on this particular Missouri restriction, when it was passed. It is immaterial what his opinions of slavery were—what did he think of that measure ? The author o'f the Declaration of Independence is often appealed to a» authority by the gentleman’s party. Sir, if the departed Jefferson could returmfrom the realms above—if the seals of thetombat Monticello could be broken, and that spirit could be permitted to revisit the earth, believe you that he would speak I a different sentiment to-day from that he uttered then? Here is the letter which Mr. Jefferson wrote. It is tbb long to read the whole; but in this letter to Mr. Holmes, of Maine, dated the 29th April, 1820, after strongly condemning the establishment of a geographical line, and the attempt to restrain the “diffusion of slavery over a greater surface,” he says: “An abstinence, too, from this act of power would remove the jealousy excited by the undertaking of Congress to regulate the condition of Hie different descriptions of men composing a State. This, certainly, is the exchSsive right of every State, which nothing in the Constitution has taken from them and given to the General Government. Could Congress, for example, say that the now freemen of Connecticut should be freemen, and that they shall not emigrate into any other State ?” This is plain and explicit, and on the very question. - I Again, in a letter to Mr. Madison on the saiffe subject, he says: “ I am indebted to you for ypur two letters of February 7 and 19. This Missouri question, by a geographical line of division, is the most portentous one I have ever contemplated.” * * * “Is ready to risk the Union for any chance of restoring his party to power, and wriggling himself to the head of it.” The*allusion here is evidently to Rufus King, who was the first mover of the restriction. Such, sir, were the sentiments of him who was not only the author of the Declaration of Independence, but the author of the ordinance of 1787, under the'old Confederation. This is what he said of the restriction of 1820, under out' present Constitution. Here is also Mr. Madison’s emphatic opinion against the same measure. I cannot take up my time in reading it. I state the fact, and challenge contradiction. Jefferson was against the restriction of 1820. Madison was against it, and Jack- son Was against it. No man can deny these facts. It was reluctantly accepted by the South, however, as an alternative, and only as an alternative, for the sake of peace and harmony. And who are those now who call it a sacred compact? Those very men, the gentleman and his party, who denounced every man from the,North as “ a doughface,” who from 1846 to 1850 were in favor of abiding by it for the sake of union and harmony. Not a man can be named from the North who was willing to abide by that line of division during the period I have stated who was not denounced by the gentleman and his party as “a doughface.” Who now are the “ dough-faces?” And ■if the gentleman wishes to know what tree brought forth that better fruit of which he spoke the other day, I will tell him. It was not the Kansas tree, but that old political upas planted by Rufus King in 1820. It grew up; it flourished, and it sentits poisonous exhalations throughout this country till it came well nigh extinguishing the life of the Republic in 1850. Mr. CAMPBELL. That tree was planted when—[Cries of “Order!” “Order!”]—when slavery w'as first brought to the shores of America. [Cries of “ Order!” “ Order!”] Mr. STEPHENS. Well, then, Mr. Speaker, it is much older than the Kansas bill. It was planted before the Government was formed. The Constitution itself was grafted upon its stock. The condition or slavery of the African race, as it exists amongst us, is a “ fixed fact” in the Constitution. From this a tree has indeed sprung —bearing, however, no troubles or bitter fruits. It is the tree of national liberty, which, by the culture of statesmen and patriots, has grown up and flourished, and is now sending its branches far and wide, ladened with no fruit but national happiness, prosperity, glory, and renown. . Mr. CAMPBELL. Will the gentleman from Georgia read the preamble to the Constitution? • Mr» STEPHENS. Yes; and I believe I can repeat it to him. It is “ in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity. ’ ’ Mr. CAMPBELL. “ And secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” * Mr. STEPHENS. Yes, sir, to themselves and their posterity—not to the negroes and Africans—and what sort of liberty? Constitutional liberty; that liberty which recognized the inferior condition of the African race amongst them; the liberty which we now enjoy; the liberty which all the States enjoyed at that time, save one, (for all were then slaveholding, except Massachu-
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=