no place under our National Government-that it is in every respect sectional, and in no respect national-that it is always and everywhere the creature and dependent of the States, and never anywhere the creature or dependent of the Nation, and that the Nation can never, by legislative or other act, impart to it any support, under the Constitution of the United States; with these convictions, I could not allow this session to reach its close, without making or seizing an opportunity to declare myself openly against the usurpation, injustice, and cruelty, of the late enactment by Congress for the recovery of fugitive slaves. Full well I know, sir, the difficulties of this discussion, arising from prejudices of opinion and from adverse conclusions, strong and sincere as my own. Full well I know that I am in a small minority, with few here to whom I may look for sympathy or support. Full well I know that I must utter things unwelcome to many in this body. which I cannot do without pain. Full well I know that the institution of slavery in our country, which I now proceed to consider, is as sensitive as it is powerful-possessing a power to shake the whole land with a sensitiveness that shrinks and trembles at the touch. But, while these things may properly prompt me to caution and reserve, they cannot change my duty, or my determination to perform it. For this I willingly forget myself, and all personal consequences. The favor and good-will of my fellow-citizens, of my brethren of the Senate, sir-grateful to me as it justly is-I am ready, if required, to sacrifice. All that I am or may be, I freely offer to this cause. And here allow me, for one moment, to refer to myself and my position. Sir, I have never been a politician. The slave of principles, I call no party master. By sentiment, education, and conviction, a friend of Human Rights, in their utmost expansion, I have ever most sincerely embraced the Democratic Idea; not, indeed, as represented or professed by any party, but according to its real significance, as transfigured in the Declaration of Independence, and in the injunctions of Christianity, In this Idea I saw no narrow advantages merely for individuals or classes, but the sovereignty of the people and the greatest happiness of all secured by equal laws. Amidst the vicissitudes of public affairs, I trust always to hold fast to this Idea, and to any political party which truly embraces it. Party does not constrain me; nor is my independence lessened by any relations to the office which gives me a title to be heard on this floor. And here, sir, I may speak proudly. By no effort, by no desire of my own, I find myself a Senator of the United States. Never before have I held public office of any kind. With the ample opportunities of private life I was No tombstone for me could bear a fairer inscription than this: "Here lies one who, without the honors or emoluments of public content. station, did something for his fellow man." From such simple aspirations I was taken away by the free choice of my native Commonwealth, and placed in this responsible post of duty, without personal obligation of any kind, beyond what was implied in my life and publish- " ed words. The earnest friends, by whose confidence I was first designated, asked nothing from me, and, throughout the long conflict which ended in my election, rejoiced in the position which I most carefully guarded. To all my language was uniform, that I did not desire to be brought forward; that I would do nothing to promote the result; that I had no pledges or promises to offer; that the office should seek me, and not I the office; and that it should find me in all respects an independent man, bound to no party and to no human being, but only, according to my best judgment, to act for the good of all. Again, sir, I speak with pride, both for myself and others, when I add that these avowals found a sympathizing response. In this spirit I have come here, and in this spirit I shall speak to-day. Rejoicing in my independence and claiming nothing from party ties, I throw myself upon the candor and magnanimity of the Senate. I now ask your attention; but I trust not to abuse it. I may speak strongly; for I shall speak openly and from the strength of my convictions. I may speak warmly; for I shall speak from the heart. But in no event can I forget the amenities which belong to debate, and which especially become this body. Slavery I must condemn with my whole soul; but here I need only borrow the language of slaveholders themselves; nor would it accord with my habits or my sense of justice to exhibit them as the impersonation of the institution-Jefferson calls it the "enormity"which they cherish. Of them I do not speak; but without fear and without favor, as without impeachment of any person, I assail this wrong. Again, sir, I may err; but it will be with the Fathers. I plant myself on the ancient ways of the Republic, with its grandest names, its surest landmarks, and all its original altarfires about me. And now, on the very threshold, I encounter the objection that there is a final settlement, in principle and substance, of the question of Slavery, and that all discussion of it is closed. Both the old political parties of the country, by formal resolutions, have united in this declaration. On a subject which for years has agitated the public mind; which yet palpitates in every heart and burns on every tongue; which, in its immeasurable importance, dwarfs all other subjects; which, by its constant and gigantic presence, throws a shadow across these Halls; which at this very time calls for appropriations to meet extraordinary expenses it has caused, they have imposed the rule of silence. According to them, sir, we may speak of everything except that alone, which is most (expressly provides against abridging freedom present in all our minds. of speech, it is a special outrage. In vain do we condemn the despotisms of Europe, while we borrow the rigors with which they repress Liberty, and guard their own uncertain power. For myself, in no factious spirit, but solemnly and in loyalty to the Constitution, as a Senator of Massachusetts, I protest against this wrong. On Slavery, as on every other subject, I claim the right to be heard. That right I cannot, I will not abandon. "Give me the liberty to know, to utter and to argue freely, above all liberties." These are the glowing words which flashed from the soul of John Milton, in his struggles with English tyranny. With equal fervor they should be echoed now by every American, not already a slave. To this combined effort I might fitly reply, that, with flagrant inconsistency, it challenges the very discussion which it pretends to forbid. Such a declaration, on the eve of an election, is, of course, submitted to the consideration and ratification of the people. Debate, inquiry, discussion, are the necessary consequence. Silence becomes impossible. Slavery, which you profess to banish from the public attention, openly by your invitation enters every political meeting and every political convention. Nay, at this moment it stalks into this Senate, crying, like the daughters of the horseleech, "Give! give!" But no unanimity of politicians can uphold the baseless assumption, that a law, or any conglomerate of laws, under the name of Compromise, or howsoever called, is final. Nothing can be plainer than this; that, by no Parliamentary device or knot, can any Legislature tie the hands of a succeeding Legislature, so as to prevent the full exercise of its constitutional powers. Each Legislature, under a just sense of its responsibility, must judge for itself; and, if it think proper, it may revise or amend, or absolutely undo the work of its predecessors. The laws of the Medes and Persians are proverbially said to have been unalterable; but they stand forth in history as a single example of such irrational defiance of the true principles of all law. To make a law final, so as not to be reached by Congress, is, by mere legislation, to fasten a new provision on the Constitution. Nay, more; it gives to the law a character which the very Constitution does not possess. The wise fathers did not treat the country as a Chinese foot, never to grow after infancy; but, anticipating Progress, they declared expressly that their Great Act is not final. According to the Constitution itself, there is not one of its existing provisions not even that with regard to fugitives from labor-which may not at all times be reached by amendment, and thus be drawn into debate. This is rational and just. Sir, nothing from man's hands, nor law, nor constitution, can be final. Truth alone is final. But, sir, this effort is impotent as tyrannical. The convictions of the heart cannot be repressed. The utterances of conscience must be heard. They break forth with irrepressible might. As well attempt to check the tides of Ocean, the currents of the Mississsppi, or the rushing waters of Niagara. The discussion of Slavery will proceed, wherever two or three are gathered together-by the fireside, on the highway, at the public meeting, in the church. The movement against Slavery is from the Everlasting Arm. Even now it is gathering its forces, soon to be confessed everywhere. It may not yet be felt in the high places of office and power; but all who can put their ears humbly to the ground, will hear and comprehend its incessant and advancing tread. The relations of the Government of the United States-I speak of the National Government-to Slavery, though plain and obvious, are constantly misunderstood. A popular belief at this moment makes Slavery a national institution, and, of course, renders its support a national duty. The extravagance of this error can hardly be surpassed. An institution, which our fathers most carefully omitted to name in the Constitution, which, according to the debates in the Convention, they refused to cover with any "sanction," and which, at the original organization of the Government, was merely sectional, existing nowhere on the Inconsistent and absurd, this effort is tyran- national territory, is now above all other things nical also. The responsibility for the recent blazoned as national. Its supporters plume Slave Act and for Slavery everywhere within themselves as national. The old political parthe jurisdiction of Congress necessarily involves ties, while upholding it, claim to be national. the right to discuss them. To separate these A National Whig is simply a Slavery Whig, is impossible. Like the twenty-fifth rule of and a National Democrat is simply a Slavery the House of Representatives against petitions Democrat, in contradistinction to all who reon Slavery-now repealed and dishonored-gard Slavery as a sectional institution, within the Compromise, as explained and urged, is a the exclusive control of the States, and with curtailment of the actual powers of legisla- which the nation has nothing to do. tion, and a perpetual denial of the indisputable principle that the right to deliberate is coextensive with the responsibility for an act. To sustain Slavery, it is now proposed to trample on free speech. In any country this would be grievous; but here, where the Constitution As Slavery assumes to be national, so, by an equally strange perversion, Freedom is degraded to be sectional, and all who uphold it, under the national Constitution, share this same epithet. The honest efforts to secure its blessings, everywhere within the jurisdiction of Congress, are scouted as sectional; and this cause, which the founders of our National Government had so much at heart, is called sectionalism. These terms, now belonging to the commonplaces of political speech, are adopted and misapplied by most persons without reflection. But herein is the power of Slavery. According to a curious tradition of the French language, Louis XIV, the grand monarch, by an accidental error of speech, among supple courtiers, changed the gender of a noun; but Slavery has done more than this. It has changed word for word. It has taught many to say national, instead of sectional, and sectional instead of national. Slavery national! Sir, this is all a mistake and absurdity, fit to take a place in some new collection of Vulgar Errors, by some other Sir Thomas Browne, with the ancient but exploded stories, that the toad has a stone in its head, and that ostriches digest iron. According to the true spirit of the Constitution, and the sentiments of the Fathers, Slavery and not Freedom is sectional, while Freedom and not Slavery is national. On this unanswerable proposition I take my stand: And here commences my argument. The subject presents itself under two principal heads; FIRST, the true relations of the National Government to Slavery, wherein it will appear that there is no national fountain out of which Slavery can be derived, and no national power, under the Constitution, by which it can be supported. Enlightened by this general survey, we shall be prepared to consider, SECONDLY, the true nature of the provision for the rendition of fugitives from labor, and herein especially the unconstitutional and offensive legislation of Congress in pursuance thereof. I. And now for the TRUE RELATIONS OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT TO SLAVERY. These will be readily apparent, if we do not neglect well-established principles. cipal regulations." (Harry vs. Decker, Walker R., 42.) And another slaveholding tribunal, the Supreme Court of Kentucky, has said: "We view this as a right existing by positive law of a municipal character, without foundation in the law of nature or the unwritten and common law."(Rankin vs. Lydia, 2 Marshall, 470.) Of course every power to uphold Slavery must have an origin as distinct as that of Slavery itself. Every presumption must be as strong against such a power as against Slavery. A power so peculiar and offensive, so hostile to reason, so repugnant to the law of nature and the inborn Rights of Man; which despoils its victims of the fruits of their labor; which substitutes concubinage for marriage; which abrogates the relation of parent and child; which, by a denial of education, abases the intellect, prevents a true knowledge of God, and murders the very soul; which, amidst a plausible physical comfort, degrades man, created in the divine image, to the level of a beast;—such a power, so eminent, so transcendent, so tyrannical, so unjust, can find no place in any system of Government, unless by virtue of positive sanction. It can spring from no doubtful phrases. It must be declared by unambiguous words, incapable of a double sense. Slavery, I now repeat, is not mentioned in the Constitution. The name Slave does not pollute this Charter of our Liberties. No "positive" language gives to Congress any power to make a Slave or to hunt a Slave. To find even any seeming sanction for either, we must travel, with doubtful footsteps, beyond its express letter, into the region of interpretation. But here are rules which cannot be disobeyed. With electric might for Freedom, they send a pervasive influence though every provision, clause, and word of the Constitution. Each and all make Slavery impossible as a national institution. They efface from the Constitution every fountain out of which it can be derived. If Slavery be national, if there be any power First and foremost, is the Preamble. This in the National Government to uphold this in- discloses the prevailing objects and principles stitution-as in the recent Slave Act-it must of the Constitution. This is the vestibule through be by virtue of the Constitution. Nor can it which all must pass, who would enter the sabe by mere inference, implication, or conjecture. cred temple. Here are the inscriptions by According to the uniform admission of courts which they are earliest impressed. Here they and jurists in Europe, again and again promul first catch the genius of the place. Here the gated in our country, Slavery can be derived proclamation of Liberty is first heard. "We only from clear and special recognition. "The the People of the United States," says the Prestate of Slavery," said Lord Mansfield, pro- amble, "in order to form a more perfect Union, nouncing judgment in the great case of Somer-establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, prosett, "is of such a nature, that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons moral or political, but only by positive law. It is so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it but POSITIVE LAW."-(Howell's State Trials, vol. 20, p. 82.) And a slaveholding tribunal, the Supreme Court of Mississippi, adopting the same principle, has said: "Slavery is condemned by reason and the laws of nature. It exists and can exist only through muni vide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Thus, according to undeniable words, the Constitution was ordained, not to establish, secure, or sanction Slavery-not to promote the special interests of slaveholdersnot to make Slavery national, in any way, form, or manner; but to "establish justice," "pro mote the general welfare," and "secure the blessings of Liberty." Here surely Liberty is national. Secondly. Next in importance to the Preamble are the explicit contemporaneous declarations in the Convention which framed the Constitution, and elsewhere, expressed in different forms of language, but all tending to the same conclusion. By the Preamble, the Constitution speaks for Freedom. By these declarations, the Fathers speak as the Constitution speaks. Early in the Convention, Gouverneur Morris, of Pennsylvania, broke forth in the language of an Abolitionist: "He never would concur in upholding domestic slavery. It was a nefarious institution. It was the curse of Heaven on the State where it prevailed." Oliver Ellsworth, of Connecticut, said: "The morality or wisdom of Slavery are considerations belonging to the States themselves." According to him, Slavery was sectional. At a later day, a discussion ensued on the clause touching the African slave trade, which reveals the definitive purposes of the Convention. From the report of Mr. Madison e learn what was said. Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts, "thought we had nothing to do with the conduct of the States as to Slavery, but we ought to be careful not to give any sanction to it." According to these words, he regarded Slavery as sectional, and would not make it national. Roger M. Sherman, of Connecticut, was opposed to any tax on slaves imported, as making the matter worse, because it implied they were property." He would not have Slavery national. After debate, the subject was committed to a committee of eleven, who subsequently reported a substitute, authorizing a tax on such migration or importation, at a rate not exceeding the average of duties laid on imports." This language, classifying persons with merchandise, seemed to imply a recognition that they were property. Mr. Sherman at once declared himself against this part, as acknowledging men to be property, by taxing them as such under the character of slaves." Mr. Gorham "thought Mr. Sherman should consider the duty not as implying that slaves are property, but as a discouragement to the importation of them." Mr. Madison, in mild juridical phrase, "thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in man." After discussion, it was finally agreed to make the clause read: "But a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person." The difficulty seemed then to be removed, and the whole clause was adopted. This record demonstrates that the word "persons" was employed in order to show that slaves, everywhere under the Constitution, were always to be regarded as persons, and not as property, and thus to exclude from the Constitution all idea that there can be property in man. Remember well, that Mr. Sherman was opposed to the clause in its original form, "as acknowledging men to be property," that Mr. Madison was also opposed to it, because he "thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in man;" and that, after these objections, the clause was so amended as to exclude the idea. But Slavery cannot be national, unless this idea is distinct ly and unequivocally admitted into the Constitution. Nor is this all. In the Massachusetts Convention, to which the Constitution, when completed, was submitted for ratification, a veteran of the Revolution, General Heath, openly declared that, according to his view, Slavery was sectional, and not national. His language was pointed. "I apprehend," he says, "that it is not in our power to do anything for or against those who are in Slavery in the Southern States. No gentleman within these walls detests every idea of Slavery more than I do; it is generally detested by the people of this Commonwealth; and I ardently hope the time will soon come, when our brethren in the Southern States will view it as we do, and put a stop to it; but to this we have no right to compel them. Two questions naturally arise: If we ratify the Constitution, shall we do anything by our act to hold the blacks in Slavery-or shall we become partakers of other men's sins? I think neither of them." Afterwards, in the first Congress under the Constitution, on a motion, which was much debated, to introduce into the Impost Bill a duty on the importation of slaves, the same Roger M. Sherman, who in the National Convention had opposed the idea of property in man, authoritatively exposed the true relations of the Constitution to Slavery. His language was, that "the Constitution does not consider these persons as property; it speaks of them as persons." Thus distinctly and constantly, from the very lips of the framers of the Constitution, we learn the falsehood of the recent assumptions in favor of Slavery and in derogation of Freedom. Thirdly. According to a familiar rule of interpretation, all laws concerning the same matter, in pari materia, are to be construed together. By the same reason, the grand political acts of the Nation are to be construed together, giving and receiving light from each other. Earlier than the Constitution was the Declaration of Independence, embodying, in immortal words, those primal truths to which our country pledged itself with its baptismal vows as a Nation. "We hold these truths to be self-evident," says the Nation, "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." But this does not stand alone. There is another national act of similar import. | ing and controlling quality of persons by which On the successful close of the Revolution, the they are designated in the Constitution. The Continental Congress, in an address to the character of property is given them by the lopeople, repeated the same lofty truth. "Let it cal law. This law is respected, and all rights be remembered," said the Nation again, "that under it are protected by the Federal authoriit has ever been the pride and the boast of ties; but the Constitution acts upon slaves as America, that the rights for which she has con- PERSONS, and not as property." **** "The tended were the rights of human nature. By power over Slavery belongs to the States rethe blessing of the Author of these rights, they spectively. It is local in its character, and in have prevailed over all opposition, and FORM its effects."-(Groves vs. Slaughter, 15 Peters THE BASIS of thirteen independent States." R., 507). Here again Slavery is sectional, Such were the acts of the Nation in its united while Freedom is national. capacity. Whatever may be the privileges of States in their individual capacities, within their several local jurisdictions, no power can be attributed to the Nation, in the absence of positive, unequivocal grant, inconsistent with these two national declarations. Here, sir, is the national heart, the national soul, the national will, the national voice, which must inspire our interpretation of the Constitution, and enter into and diffuse itself through all the national legislation. Thus again is Freedom national. Sir, such briefly are the rules of interpretation which, as applied to the Constitution, fill it with the breath of Freedom, Driving far off each thing of sin and guilt. In To the history and prevailing se rtiments of the Fourthly. Beyond these, is a principle of the common law, clear and indisputable, aus, upon which we may look with pure nasupreme rule of interpretation from which in tional pride, while we learn anew the relations of the National Government to Slavery. this case there can be no appeal. In any question under the Constitution every word is to be construed in favor of liberty. This rule, which commends itself to the natural reason, is sus tained by time-honored maxims of our early jurisprudence. Blackstone aptly expresses it, when he says, that "the law is always ready to catch at anything in favor of liberty."(2. Black. Com., 94.) The rule is repeated in various forms. Favores ampliandi sunt; odia restringenda. Favors are to be amplified; hateful things to be restrained. Lex Anglia est lex misericordia. The law of England is a law of mercy. Angliæ jura in omni casu libertati dant favorem. The laws of England in every case shew favor to liberty. And this sentiment breaks forth in natural, though intense, force, in the maxim: Impius et crudelis judicandus est qui libertati non favet. He is to be adjudged impious and cruel who does not favor liberty. Reading the Constitution in the admonition of these rules, again I say Freedom is national. The Revolution had been accomplished. The feeble Government of the Confederation had passed away. The Constitution, slowly matured in a National Convention, discussed be fore the people, defended by masterly pens, had With reverence look on his majestic face, Fifthly. From a learned judge of the Supreme Court of the United States, in an opinion of the Court, we derive the same lesson. In considering the question, whether a State can prohibit the importation of slaves as merchandize, and whether Congress, in the exercise of its power to regulate commerce among the States, can interfere with the slave-trade between the States, a principle has been enun- The oath was administered by the Chancellor ciated, which, while protecting the trade from of New York. At this time, and in this presany intervention of Congress, declares openly ence, beneath the uncovered heavens, Washthat the Constitution acts upon no man as ington first took this vow upon his lips: "I do property. Mr. Justice McLean says: "If slaves solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute are considered in some of the States as mer- the office of President of the United States, and chandise, that cannot divest them of the lead-will, to the best of my ability, preserve, pro |