« ZurückWeiter »
of Mr. FREMONT. Mr. BURNETT, member of Congress from Kentucky, after speaking of the strong attachment of his State to the Union, goes on to say: “But, sir, if John C. FREMONT should be elected, pledged as he is to make war upon the institutions of the South, composed as his Administration would be of men from one section of the Union, filled as the Federal offices would be with sectional men, all pledged to make a common cause against the South, with a Congress backing up his Administration, such as the present House, who conceive no measure too unconstitutional, too revolutionary, too disgraceful, to meet their sanction, so as it makes war upon the South, the frightful mien of disunion forces itself on them as far the preferable alternative between it and oppression and disgrace in the Union. They would then still be mindful of its past glories, the memories of its great statesmen, the heroic deeds of valor of its noted warriors, and prefer rather to cut short its existence than blacken those brilliant recollections with the record of its future disgrace.” This is a type of the feeling that prevailed in the South generally, in opposition to the Republican party. And in the Republican party there was also a spirit of intolerance and disunion. Mr. HoRACE GREELEY declared: “I have no doubt but the Free and the Slave States ought to be separated * * The Union is not worth supporting in connection with the South.” Mr. E. P. HuRLBURT, a lawyer in Herkimer, New York, made the following declaration: “Rather than admit another slave State into the Confederacy, I would dissolve it. Rather than endure the curse of such another four years' governmental infamy as PIERCE, Douglas, and Co. have inflicted on us, I would dissolve it, so help me Heaven.” Mr. G. W. JULIEN, who had been a member of Congress from Indiana, in a speech made the following declaration on behalf of the Republican party: “I tell you we are a sectional party. It is not alone a fight between the North and the South; it is a fight between freedom and slavery; between God and the Devil; between heaven and hell.” [Loud applause.] A. P. BURLINGAME, member from Mass., said: “When we shall have elected a President, as we will, who will not be the President of a party, nor of a section, but the tribune of the people, and after we have exterminated a few more miserable doughfaces from the North, then if the slave Senate will not give way, we will grind it between the upper and nether mill-stone of our power.” SIMON BRowN, ex-Lieutenant-Governor of Massachusetts, said: “The object to be accomplished is this, for the Free States to take possession of the Government.” TRUMAN SMITH, ex-Senator of Connecticut, declared: “Should Mr. BUCHANAN be elected, it may be written down as certain that, within two years from the fourth of March next, Kansas will be delivered up to the Molochs of slavery. She will be brought in as a Slave State.” These extracts show the state of feeling in both sections of the country. Extensively at the South there was a determination to secede from the Union for the reasons stated by Mr. BURNETT, in case Mr. FREMONT should be elected President.
Just after President BUCHANAN's inauguration, the Supreme Court of the United States made the famous decision in the case of DRED Scott, which seemed to settle certain political questions which had long been pending in the public mind. In the act of Congress, by which Kansas and Nebraska became Territories, the slavery restriction which applied to all territory north of 36°30' was repealed. The scope and effect of the language of repeal were not left in doubt. It was declared in terms to be “the true intent and meaning of this act, not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their own institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States.”
DRED Scott, in the year 1854, was a negro slave belonging to Dr. EMERSON, who was a surgeon in the army of the United States. In that year, Dr. EMERSON took the said Scott to the military post at Rock Island in the State of Illinois, and held him there as a slave until April or May, 1856. At the time last mentioned, said Dr. EMERson removed to the military post at Fort Snelling, situated on the west bank of the Mississippi River, in the Territory known as Upper Louisiana, acquired by the United States from France, and situated north of the latitude of 36° 30' north, and north of the State of Missouri. Dr. EMERSON held the plaintiff, DRED Scott, in slavery until the year 1858. The court decided that said DRED Scott did not obtain title to his liberty from the fact that his master took him first from Missouri to Illinois, where negro slavery does not exist by law, and next to the territory north of 36° 30', where, by the Missouri Compromise, slavery was prohibited. In deciding this case upon certain principles, those principles had to be examined and settled. o 1. It was decided that a free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a “citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States. 2. It was decided that the clauses in the Constitution which point to this race, treat them as persons whom it was lawful to deal in as articles of property, and to hold as slaves. 3. It was decided that since the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, no State can by any subsequent law make a foreigner or any other description of persons citizens of the United States, nor entitle them to the rights and privileges secured to citizens by that instrument. 4. The change in public opinion and feeling in relation to the African race, which has taken place since the adoption of the Constitution, cannot change its construction and meaning, and it must be construed and administered now, according to its true meaning and intentions, when it was framed and adopted. 5. The clause in the Constitution authorizing Congress to make all needful rules and regulations for the government of the territory and other property of the United States, applies only to territory within the chartered limits of some one of the States when they were colonies of Great Britain, and which was surrendered by the British Government to the old Confederation of States, in the Treaty of peace. It does not apply to territory acquired by the present Federal Government, by treaty or conquest from a foreign nation. 6. During the time it remains a territory, Congress may legislate over it within the scope of its constitutional powers in relation to citizens of the United States, and may establish a Territorial Government, and the form of this local government must be regulated by the discretion of Congress, but with powers not exceeding those which Congress itself, by the Constitution, is authorized to exercise over citizens of the United States, in respect to their rights of persons or rights of property. 7. The territory thus acquired, is acquired by the people of the United States for their common and equal benefit, through their agent or trustee, the Federal Government; Congress can exercise no power over the rights of persons or property of a citizen in the Territory, which is prohibited by the Constitution. The Government and the citizens both enter it with their respective rights defined and limited by the Constitution. 8. Congress has no right to prohibit the citizens of any particular State or States from taking up their home there, while it permits citizens of other States to do so. Nor has it a right to give privileges to one class of citizens which it refuses to do to another. The territory is acquired for their equal and common benefit, and if open to any, it must be open to all upon equal and the same terms. 9. Every citizen has a right to take with him into the territory, any article of property which the Constitution of the United States recognizes as property. 10. The Constitution of the United States recognizes slaves as property, and pledges the General Government to protect it. And Congress cannot exercise any more authority over property of that description, than it may constitutionally exercise over property of any other kind. 11. The act of Congress, therefore, prohibiting a citizen of the United States from taking with him his slaves when he removes to the territory in question to reside, is an exercise of authority over private property which is not warranted by the Constitution; and the removal of the plaintiff by his owner to that territory gave him no title to freedom.
After the nomination for Speaker in the House of Representatives for the 36th Congress, on Dec. 5, 1859, Mr. CLARE, member from Missouri, offered the following resolution:
“Whereas certain members of this House, now in nomination for Speaker, did endorse and recommend the book hereinafter mentioned,
“Resolved, That the doctrines and sentiments of a certain book, called ‘The impending crisis of the South—How to meet it,” purporting to have been written by one HINTON RowAN HELPER, are insurrectionary and hostile to the domestic peace and tranquillity of the country, and that no member of this House, who has endorsed and recommended it, or the compend from it, is fit to be Speaker of this House.”
The design of the book was to hasten the crisis which it predicts as “impending,” by detailing the wretchedness of the Slave States; “the aim of the revolution” desired; “the stupid masses in the South,” who are described as the “white victims” of slavery; the results as the “sum of all villanies,” as slavery is described to be ; the dependence of the South on the North for the necessary or the convenient articles of life; with “a revolutionary appeal to Southern non-slaveholders; ” with the declaration that “the North must seize the riches of the South,” and “that the revolution must free the slaves; ” and that the North is too scrupulous; that the revolution must take
place, “peaceably if we can, forcibly if we must.”
“The banner to stand or die by. Inscribed on the banner which we herewith unfurl to the world, with the fixed determination to stand by it or die by it, unless one of more virtuous efficacy shall be presented, are the mottoes which in substance embody the principles, as we conceive, that should govern us in our patriotic warfare against the most subtle and insidious foe that ever menaced the inalienable rights, and liberties, and dearest interests of America.”
“1. Thorough organization and independent political action on the part of the non-slaveholding whites at the South.
“2. Ineligibility of pro-slavery slaveholders; never another vote to any one who advocates the retention and perpetuation
* of human slavery.
“3. No co-operation with pro-slavery; no fellowship with them in religion; no affiliation with them in society. “4. No patronage to pro-slavery merchants; no guestship in powery hotels; no fees to pro-slavery lawyers; no employ