A few extracts from the speeches of the members will serve to show what was then the sentiment in relation to this Northern interference with Southern rights.

MR. HAMMOND, of South Carolina, moved

"That the petitions be not received. The large majority by which the House had rejected a similar petition a few days ago, had been very gratifying to him, and no doubt would be to the whole South. He was not disposed to go into the discussion of the question involved in the petitions; though, should it be urged, he would not shrink from it a hair's breadth; but he did think it due to the House and the country, to give at once the most decisive evidence of the sentiments entertained here upon this subject. He wished to put an end to these petitions. He could not sit there and submit to their being brought forward until the House had become callous to their consequences. He could not sit there and see the rights of the Southern people assaulted, day after day, by the ignorant fanatics from whom these memorials proceed."*

Mr. PIERCE, of New Hampshire, said:

"He was unwilling that any imputation should rest upon the North, in consequence of the misguided and fanatical zeal of a few-comparatively very few-who, however honest might have been their purposes, he believed had done incalculable mischief, and whose movements he knew received no more sanction among the great mass of the people of the North, than they did at the South.

"For one, said Mr. Pierce, while he would be the last to infringe upon any of the sacred reserved rights of the people, he was prepared to stamp with disapprobation, in the most express and unequivocal terms, the whole movement upon this subject. He felt con

fidence in asserting that among the people of the State which he had the honor, in part, to represent, there was not one in a hundred who did not entertain the most sacred regard for the rights of their Southren brethren-nay, not one in five hundred who would not have those rights protected at any and every hazard. There was not the slightest disposition to interfere with any rights secured by the Constitution, which binds together, and which he humbly hoped ever would bind together, this great and glorious confederacy as one family."†

Congressional Globe, Dec. 1835, page 27.

† Ibid., page 33.

Mr. SLADE, of Vermont, said:

"One of the objections he had heard strongly insisted on, was that abolition had a tendency to disturb the balance of the Constitution. He contended that the balance was disturbed on the other side by the gradual increase of slavery. It would not be long before the representation of the slave-holding States would far outweigh the proportions settled under the Constitution. And this was not through the relative increase of the white, but the black population. In the State of Virginia, the increase of the whites had been eighty-four, while that of the blacks had been one hundred and thirty-six; and in South Carolina the increase of the whites had been forty-four and a fraction, while that of the blacks had been ninety-four and a half per cent. This fact, he contended, would show that the progress of abolition was necessary to preserve the balance of the Constitution, or rather to restore it, for it had been already disturbed by the purchase of Louisiana." * (1)

Mr. MANN, of New York, said:

"The Union and the Constitution, sir, were the result of concession and compromise. The subject under debate formed one of the points. We agreed-we entered into the compact with our Southern brethren; and the question now presented by them to us—the real question (when the argument is pushed to the full extent) propounded to us of the North, is whether we will live up to the bargain we have made to the compact and union we have entered into? For myself, for my constituents and friends, I answer, without hesitation or mental reservation, that under all circumstances and in every vicissitude, good or evil, we will-we will, though the Heavens fall." †(2)

Mr. CALHOUN, of South Carolina, said:

"He saw, in these petitions, that eleven of the States of the Union were grossly slandered, and no man could put his hand on his heart and say otherwise. They had refused to receive petitions because they implicated members of that body, and were they to receive petitions in which eleven of the States were deeply, basely, and maliciously slandered? Were they to put more reprobation on the † Ibid., page 46.

* Congressional Globe, Dec. 1835, page 49.

slander of an individual member than on the slander of sovereign States?

"He demanded the question, because these memorials aimed at a violation of the Constitution. We have not the power, said he, under the Constitution, to interfere with the subject of slavery. He and his constituents understood this question. This was a preliminary abolition movement. These abolitionists moved first upon the District of Columbia, which was the weakest point, in order to operate afterward on the States; and he would resist them as firmly in this movement, as he would on the direct question of emancipation. He demanded the preliminary question as to receiving these petitions, because he was averse to an agitation which would sunder this Union. Sir, said he, we fear not these incendiary pamphlets in the South. The South was too well aware of what is due to itself, to permit the circulation of those pamphlets. It was agitation here that they feared, because it would compel the Southern press to discuss the question in the very presence of the slaves, who were induced to believe that there was a powerful party at the North ready to assist them. He objected to receiving these petitions, because the country was deeply agitated by them; because they were sundering the bonds which held this Union together. As a lover of the Union, he objected to receiving them; nay, they must cease, or the Southern people never can be satisfied. And how (asked Mr. C.) will you put a stop to them? By receiving these petitions, and laying them on the table? No, no! The abolitionists understand this too well. Nothing would stop them but a stern refusal; by closing the doors to them, and refusing to receive them."*

Mr. PRESTON, of South Carolina, said:

"They of the South had a right, under the Constitution, to demand some other action than the Government had pursued. He referred to the meetings held by abolitionists-the apostles they had sent out to preach their doctrines-the circulation of publications of every species, and their exciting character. All of them had seen these things, and he felt called upon to keep the South informed of them. They were calculated to spread terror throughout the South. Men's minds had already been disturbed there. The Government had been called upon to act upon them. They could not sit by, and see the

Congressional Globe, January, 1836, page 77.

character of their constituents aspersed by ignorant, blood-thirsty fanatics. They were bound to appeal to the Government. For one, he did not fear an interference in the rights of the South. You cannot, said he, interfere with them, either in politics, in religion, in morals, or physical means. They were bound to defend, by all the means the God of nature had put into their power, against these incendiary attempts to wrap their land in flames, and to deluge it in blood. Sir, said he, they are filling our houses, our fields, and our hearths, with implacable murderers, and robbing us of our thousands! Sir, we demand repose! We insist that the Government shall say to us, in intelligible language, that you cannot legislate upon this subject that you cannot receive the petitions of these hot-headed and cold-hearted fanatics-these men, women, and children, who are waging a war of extermination against us. In this free government, said Mr. P., it may be impossible for the government authorities to stop them entirely; but, said he, we ask that Congress will distinctly and positively interfere between us and these fanatics, and that the General Government will not directly or indirectly be an agent in this system of destruction. I fear, unless it stands as an impassable barrier between these people and us, that the consequences will be terrible. We, in the South, exist under a bond of necessity which cannot be broken-our lives and our property are the ligaments that bind us together. Civil war was terrible-to the ratiocinations of the mind, it was dreadful. Interference must be direct or indirect. The people of the South demanded such action of Congress on these petitions, as would leave no possible doubt between them and this exciting subject. It was a matter on which there could be no difference of opinion. He abhorred the idea of mixing up politics with it. Their sole object was to protect their property and their lives. In a political point of view, it was extremely important to prevent agitation on this subject. He spoke of its bearings upon different sections of the country, and, said he, the overwhelming vortex of politics sweeps everything before it."†

Mr. BUCHANAN, of Pennsylvania, said:

"If any one principle of Constitutional law can, at this day, be considered as settled, it is, that Congress have no right, no power,

*Several of the petitions were signed by women.

† Congressional Globe, Jan. 1836, page 78.

over the question of slavery in the States where it exists. The property of the master in his slave existed in full force before the Federal Constitution was adopted. It was a subject which then belonged, as it still belongs, to the exclusive jurisdiction of the several States. These States, by the adoption of the Constitution, never yielded to the General Government any right to interfere with the question. It remains where it was previous to the establishment of our confederacy.

"The Constitution has, in the clearest terms, recognized the right of property in slaves. It prohibits any State into which a slave may have fled from passing any law to discharge him from slavery, and declares that he shall be delivered up by the authorities of such State to his master. Nay, more, it makes the existence of slavery the foundation of political power, by giving to those States within which it exists representatives in Congress not only in proportion to the whole number of free persons, but also in proportion to threefifths of the number of slaves.

"An occasion very fortunately arose in the first Congress to settle this question forever. The Society for the Abolition of Slavery in Pennsylvania brought it before that Congress by a memorial, which was presented on the 11th day of February, 1790. After the subject had been discussed for several days, and after solemn deliberation, the House of Representatives, in Committee of the Whole, on the 23d day of March, 1790, resolved, That Congress have no authority to interfere in the emancipation of slaves, or in the treatment of them within any of the States; it remaining with the several States alone to provide any regulations therein, which humanity and true policy may require.'

"I have thought it would be proper to present this decision, which was made about a half century ago, distinctly to the view of the American people. The language of the resolution is clear, precise, and definite. It leaves the question where the Constitution left it, and where, so far as I am concerned, it ever shall remain. The Constitution of the United States never would have been called into existence instead of the innumerable blessings which have flowed from our happy Union, we should have had anarchy, jealousy, and civil war among the sister republics of which our confederacy is composed-had not the free States abandoned all control over this question. For one, whatever may be my opinions upon the abstract question of slavery, and I am free to confess they are those of the