A Report of the Debates and Proceedings in the Secret Sessions of the Conference Part 26

Mr. SMITH:--I thank the gentleman from North Carolina. He entertains his opinions, I do mine, as to what then saved the Union. I should not probably be able to make him think with me; but I feel sure that the idea prevails quite extensively, that South Carolina returned to the path of duty then, because the power of the Government was wielded by an honest and energetic Executive. She came to the conclusion that any other course would probably be attended with danger.

Our present differences had no very remote origin. They belong to our own generation, and we ought to be compelled to deal with them. I think the so-called compromise of 1850 was the cause of all our troubles--that instead of saving the country it brought it into greater danger than it ever was before.

Mr. BARRINGER:--I wish to make a suggestion on that point.

Mr. SMITH:--I hope the gentleman will not forget that he will have a full opportunity to answer me. I am nearly through, and generally no good comes of interruptions. They only consume time.

I was about to say, that I do not propose to go into the question of who was to blame for that repeal. I agree with gentlemen from the South, that there is no profit now in discussing the origin of our troubles--in inquiring who set the house on fire before we put on the water.

Mr. CLAY:--Does the gentleman do justice to Mr. CLAY, when at one moment he says that Mr. CLAY held up the arms of the administration, strengthened the Executive, and aided the Government in putting down secession, and in the next, states that the compromise of 1850 was the cause of all our troubles, when it is well known that Mr. CLAY strongly favored that compromise?

Mr. SMITH:--When I speak of the unhappy effect of the compromise measures of 1850, I ascribe no wrong motives to Mr. CLAY or any one else. If he approved that compromise, I have no doubt he did it in the full belief that it would be beneficial to the country. Experience has shown that he was mistaken. Saying this is doing no injustice to Mr.

CLAY. I spoke only of effects. I spoke of the zeal and the energy with which the patriots and eminent statesmen of all parties of this country have been accustomed to come forward and sustain the administration when any necessity existed for doing so. Now let this Conference--let all true friends of the Union everywhere, with one voice, without attempting to place any section or any man in a false or disagreeable position, unite in one determined effort in behalf of the Union, and in an attempt to bring the rash and dangerous men who would seek the destruction of the Government back to a sense of duty.

Let us address the country, let us show that we are devoted to the Union, far beyond any considerations of party or self; let us invoke the aid of all true and patriotic men; let us ask them to lay aside for the time all other considerations, and give themselves for the present to the country! The spirit of the old time is yet alive. We can call it out in more than its old strength and vigor, and it will save the country. Our private interests may suffer, but the great interests of the Union will be strengthened and preserved, and the Const.i.tution, which has been our pride and strength, will not be dragged down into the great whirlpool of disunion. I appeal to the venerable and able men around me, who bear historic names--who have been themselves long connected with the Union and its Government, to join us in our struggle to save the Const.i.tution.

The views I have expressed may be chimerical. I have advanced them with no little diffidence, but I felt called upon to state them in the discharge of a duty I owe to a people who love and will make great sacrifices to save the Const.i.tution and the Union.

A majority vote, one way or the other here, would be of little consequence. It would carry no weight with it. But if the members of this Conference would all unite in such an appeal to the country, the response would be instantaneous and effective. The heart of the country is loyal; the heart of the South is loyal, I believe. We have abundant evidence that it is not too late to rely upon the Union men in Missouri and Tennessee!

Mr. CARRUTHERS:--The vote of Tennessee is entirely misunderstood.

Mr. SMITH:--Perhaps so. I have no acquaintance with the people of Tennessee. But I will not occupy the time of the Conference farther. I have spoken plainly, but I have spoken what I believe to be the honest convictions of a large majority of the people of this Union. Once more I say, let us not destroy the Const.i.tution!

Mr. CLEVELAND:--I have not got up to make a speech. We have had too much speech-making here. It may be very well for gentlemen to get up and make long arguments and eloquent appeals, and show their abilities and powers, but it all does no sort of good--n.o.body is benefited, and no opinions are changed. I shall take no such course. I want to see whether this little handful of men who meet every day in this hall, cannot get together and fix up this matter which has been so much talked about. Let us pay no attention to the great men or the politicians. They have interests of their own. Some of them have interests which are superior to those of their country.

In the common affairs of life there are always a great many differences of opinion. Some treat these differences one way--some another. Foolish men go to law, and always come out worse off than when they started. Sensible men get together, and talk matters over; one gives up a little, the other gives up a little, and finally they get together. Now, friends, that is just what I want to see done here.

We are all friends--friends of the Union and of each other. n.o.body wants to give up the Union, or hurt Mr. LINCOLN. The South has got frightened--not exactly frightened, but she thinks the Republicans, since they have got the power, are going to trample upon her rights.

She wants the North to agree not to do so. Now I should like to know what objection there was to that? Who is afraid to do that? If we could go to work at this thing like sensible men, we could settle the whole matter in two hours.

Now about these propositions. I do not see any thing alarming in them.

I have not set to work to pick flaws in them. Leave that to the lawyers. I don't care much about them, nor does the North care about them. If the South will take them and be satisfied--if they will stop this clamor about slavery and slavery extension, I think she had better have them. For one, I am sick of the whole subject.

Let us then go about the work like sensible men; let us stop making long speeches and picking flaws in each other. It is a matter of business, and pretty important business. Let us consider it as such, and from this moment let us throw aside all feeling, and set about coming to some understanding. We can do it to-day as well as next week. I do not know that these propositions are the best that can be made; but if they are not, let us talk the matter over like good Union men, and see what is best. When we can find that out, let us agree. If we stay here and make speeches until doomsday, we shall be no better off. I am for action, and coming to an immediate decision.

Mr. COALTER:--If the vote of Missouri is to be taken as an evidence of her devotion to the Union, it must also be understood with this qualification: Her interests and her sympathies unite her closely with the South. She feels, in common with others, her share of anxiety for the future. She is devoted to the Union, and at the same time she insists that it is fair and right that these guarantees should be given.

It has been distinctly avowed on this floor that the people of certain sections of the North _abhor_ slavery. Ought we not to be distrustful when a party entertaining such sentiments comes into supreme power?

If Ma.s.sachusetts abhors _slavery_, how long will it be before she will abhor _slaveholders?_

Ignorance is the source of all our difficulties. The people of the North know little of the condition of the negro in a state of slavery.

We know that the four millions of blacks in the South are better off in all respects than any similar number of laborers anywhere.

But I rise only to correct a false impression in regard to Missouri. I have only besides to express my full conviction that if the North will not give us these guarantees, we are henceforth a divided people.

Mr. GOODRICH:--Mr. President, the object of this Convention, a.s.sembled on the call or invitation of Virginia, is, as set forth in the preamble and resolutions of her General a.s.sembly,

"To restore the Union and Const.i.tution in the spirit in which they were established by the fathers of the Republic;"

or, as otherwise expressed, "to adjust the present unhappy controversies in the spirit in which the Const.i.tution was originally made, and consistently with its principles."

This agrees, in substance, with the purpose of the Republican party, which, in the words of the Philadelphia platform, is declared to be that of "restoring the action of the Federal Government to the principles of WASHINGTON and JEFFERSON."

Virginia announces to the other States that she "is desirous of employing every reasonable means," and is "willing to unite" with them "in an earnest effort" for the accomplishment of this common end and object of that State and the Republican party; and she is moved to make this her "final effort," by "the deliberate opinion of her General a.s.sembly, that unless the unhappy controversy which now divides the States of this Confederacy shall be satisfactorily adjusted, a permanent dissolution of the Union is inevitable," and by a desire to "avert so dire a calamity."

Ma.s.sachusetts, equally willing to unite with the other States in an earnest effort to further the same end, accepted the invitation of Virginia, and sent Commissioners here to represent her.

The honorable Chairman (Mr. GUTHRIE) of the committee to report a plan of adjustment, in his opening speech, advocated with earnestness and eloquence a restoration of the Const.i.tution to the principles of the fathers. The distinguished gentleman (Mr. RIVES) from Virginia demands a "restoration of the Const.i.tution to the landmarks of our fathers," and his colleague (Mr. SEDDON) urges a return to the "policy of our fathers in 1787."

This a.s.sumes that we have departed from the principles and landmarks of our fathers, and from the policy of 1787. The call of the Convention a.s.sumes this; the platform of the Republican party a.s.sumes it, and the gentlemen whose remarks I have quoted a.s.sume it, and it is true.

The particular object of a return to the principles and landmarks of the policy of 1787, as stated in the preamble and resolutions of the General a.s.sembly of Virginia, is, "to afford to the people of the slaveholding States adequate guarantees for the security of their rights." This implies that such a return will afford these adequate guarantees. I agree that it will; and I am ready, and Ma.s.sachusetts is ready, to adjust this unhappy controversy, and to give the guarantees demanded in exactly this way.

Stated in these general terms, there is a perfect agreement between us. But we find a wide difference when we go one step farther, and learn precisely what Virginia claims would be a restoration of the Const.i.tution to the principles of the fathers, and a return to the policy of 1787. This she has told us in one of the resolutions sent out with the call for this Convention. That resolution is as follows:

"_Resolved_, That in the opinion of the General a.s.sembly of Virginia, the propositions embraced in the resolutions presented to the Senate of the United States by Hon. JOHN J.

CRITTENDEN, so modified as that the first article proposed as an amendment to the Const.i.tution of the United States shall apply to all the territory of the United States, now held or hereafter acquired south of lat.i.tude 36 30', and provide that slavery of the African race shall be effectually protected as property therein during the continuance of the territorial government, and the fourth article shall secure to the owners of slaves the right of transit with their slaves between and through the non-slaveholding States and territories, const.i.tute the basis of such an adjustment of the unhappy controversy which now divides the States of this Confederacy, as would be accepted by the people of this Commonwealth."

It was in reference to these propositions that the gentleman (Mr.

SEDDON) from Virginia, has asked us the question, "Are we not ent.i.tled to these added guarantees according to the spirit of the compact of our fathers?"

The true answer to this question is the pivot on which this whole controversy must turn. If the slave States are not ent.i.tled to these added guarantees, "according to the spirit of the compact of our fathers," then Virginia, as I understand her Commissioners, and the resolutions of her General a.s.sembly, does not claim them. She stands upon her rights according to that compact. And all such rights Ma.s.sachusetts is ready to accord to her, fairly and fully.

By the spirit of the compact of our fathers is meant, the Const.i.tution as they understood it, and as the people of that day understood it.

And this is what is meant by the "landmarks of the fathers." All admit that the Federal Government should be administered now, as it was administered by its framers. This is what gentlemen from the slave States, in giving utterance to their intense devotion to the Union, say.

Then, what is the Const.i.tution, as understood by those who framed it?

What does it mean when interpreted by the light of the policy of 1787?

and what is the spirit of the compact which they made? This is the question we are called to consider. In my remarks I do not mean to wander from it.

So far as the Const.i.tution touches the question out of which the present unhappy controversy has arisen, I say it means this: That slavery, as it existed or might exist within the limits of the original States, should not be interfered with to the injury of the lawful rights of slaveholders under State authority; on the contrary, that it should have the right of recaption, and a qualified protection; but that outside of those limits, otherwise than in this right of recaption, it should never exist, neither in the territories nor in the new States.

And let me say here, that when I speak of the original States, I mean the territory of those States as then bounded. Alabama and Mississippi belonged to Georgia, Tennessee belonged to North Carolina, Kentucky belonged to Virginia, Vermont belonged to New York, and Maine belonged to Ma.s.sachusetts, and were parts of the thirteen original States, at the time the Const.i.tution was adopted. When, therefore, I speak of territory outside the original States, I do not refer to territory within any of the States named.

Mr. BOUTWELL:--I trust my colleague does not claim to speak for Ma.s.sachusetts, when he denies the right of any State of this Union to establish and maintain slavery within its jurisdiction, or to prohibit it altogether, according to its discretion. This right was reserved to the States; and States in this Union, whether original or new, stand on a footing of perfect equality.

Mr. GOODRICH:--I certainly do not claim to speak for Ma.s.sachusetts, though I believe the opinion of the great majority of her people agrees with my own on this subject. However, what I claim is, that Ohio and the other States of the northwestern territory have no const.i.tutional power to legalize slavery within their limits; that they were admitted into the Union without any such power, and that every other new State formed from territory outside the limits of the original States, according to the "spirit of the compact of our fathers," should have been admitted without that power, or the right to acquire it. This I will now proceed to show.

On the first day of March, 1784, the northwest territory, const.i.tuting the present States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, was ceded by Virginia to the United States. The jurisdiction of the United States was then exclusive and paramount, or soon became so--such other States as had claimed any right of jurisdiction having ceded it. The cession of Virginia was made by THOMAS JEFFERSON, SAMUEL HARDY, ARTHUR LEE, and JAMES MONROE, who were delegates in Congress from that State, and had been appointed Commissioners for this purpose. On the same day the cession was made, Mr. JEFFERSON, in behalf of a committee, reported a plan for temporary governments in the United States territory then and afterwards to be ceded, and for forming therein permanent governments.

That plan provided, "that so much of the territory ceded, or to be ceded, by individual States to the United States, shall be divided into distinct States." It is obvious that this plan contemplated the possession of territory in no other way than by cession from the States. It was expected that Georgia and North Carolina would cede their western lands, now the States of Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee, as they did some years later; and Mr. JEFFERSON'S plan was intended to embrace those lands or territories to be ceded.

Consequently, the following provisions, which were part of the plan reported, were intended by him to apply to Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee, viz.:

"After the year 1800 of the Christian era, there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said States, otherwise that in the punishment of crimes."

Here the States were evidently those to be formed in United States territory. And farther on in the plan it is stated,

"That the preceding articles shall be formed into a charter of compact, and shall stand as fundamental Const.i.tutions between the thirteen original States, and each of the several States now newly described, unalterable ... but by the joint consent of the United States in Congress a.s.sembled, and of the particular State within which such alteration is proposed to be made."

This was a proposition to exclude slavery forever after 1800, not only from the territories which had been, and might afterwards be, ceded, but from the States to be formed in them, and to make it a fundamental Const.i.tution between the original States and each new State. It excited a short discussion, and was postponed from time to time to the 19th of April, when Mr. SPEIGHT, of North Carolina, moved to strike it out. The motion was seconded by Mr. REED, of South Carolina. The vote by States, on the motion to strike out, was: