The Slavery Question Part 1

The Slavery Question.

by John M. Landrum.

SPEECH OF HON. JOHN M. LANDRUM, OF LA., DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, APRIL 27, 1860.

The House being in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union--

Mr. LANDRUM said:

Mr. CHAIRMAN: That we are now threatened with great and alarming evils, no one who will take a calm and unprejudiced survey of the condition of the country can for a moment doubt. In the formation of this Government there existed a spirit of harmony and concession from the citizens of each State in this Union towards the citizens of every other State; and this spirit was so plainly exhibited in the convention which framed the Const.i.tution of the United States--that it was so adjusted, so adapted to the wants of all the States entering into the Confederacy--that it received the almost unanimous support of the Convention. Harmony and concord and good feeling reigned throughout the whole Confederacy. The citizen of South Carolina rejoiced in the prosperity and commended the virtues of the citizen of Ma.s.sachusetts; and the citizen of Ma.s.sachusetts responded to the feeling of the citizen of South Carolina. That was the feeling which pervaded the citizens of this common country when the Const.i.tution was formed; and that was the spirit which pervaded it for the thirty years afterwards during which the Government was administered by the fathers of the Republic.

But now, Mr. Chairman, what state of things does this country exhibit? A people discordant; a great sectional party formed, and the whole history of the country ransacked in a search for subjects of denunciation on the part of citizens of one portion of the Confederacy against citizens of the other.

In that convention which framed the Const.i.tution, which is the basis of our Government, slave States were admitted without objection. Concessions were made to slave States on every point that they demanded, and which they deemed essential to the preservation and protection of their rights in this Union. Ay, there was no objection then to the admission of a State into the Union because she permitted slavery. So far from that, the Const.i.tution abounds with express provisions for the protection of their property, and for the security of their rights. It was not objected to a free State that she should form a member of the Confederacy because she did not tolerate slavery. But the patriotic founders of the Republic looked to the interests of the whole country, and sacrificed prejudices whenever sacrifices were necessary, "_in order to form a more perfect union_."

Contrast that state of feeling and that state of facts with the condition in which we now see the country. Mutual denunciation is the business even of the Representatives of the people on the floor of this Hall. Members of Congress recommend the circulation of books calculated to sap and undermine the foundations on which the whole fabric of wealth, of respectability, and of civilization, of one-half the Union is based. We meet here, not to strengthen the bonds that bind us together in the Union, but to weaken them, as far as human ingenuity can do so. To such a point has this state of things culminated, that the people of State after State in the Southern portion of the Confederacy have met in convention and declared their belief that there is a probability that the time is rapidly approaching when they "_must provide new guards for their future security_." The State which I have the honor in part to represent has made that declaration. And it is charged here on the floor of this Hall, by almost every member of the Republican party who has addressed this committee on the subject of the state of the Union, that it is the Democratic party which is responsible for this condition of things; that the Democratic party have departed from the lessons of wisdom taught us by the example of our forefathers, and have thus precipitated on the country all these evils, by the manner in which they have treated the slavery question.

It shall be my purpose, Mr. Chairman, in the short time allotted to me, to endeavor to vindicate from the charge that party of which I am an humble member. The district which I represent, and the State in which that district is situated, are Democratic by an overwhelming majority; and I a.s.sert here, and am prepared to prove incontestibly, that the Democratic party are not the authors of the mischief under which the country labors.

I am prepared to prove that they have not departed from the lessons of wisdom inculcated by the example of the founders of the Republic. I will show, if history does not lie, that it is the Republican party, the anti-slavery party, that is the cause of all the evils with which the country is afflicted; and it is they, and not the Democratic party, who have abandoned the legislative precedents and examples of our fathers.

Why, sir, how are we responsible for the slavery agitation that has produced all the evils and mischief which afflict the country?

How is the Democratic party responsible for that excitement, and for the difference of opinion which pervades the Republic on that subject, threatening a dissolution of the Union? Why, we are responsible for it because we do not join the Republican party to exclude slavery from the Territories? We are responsible for it because we do not oppose the admission of a State into the Union when her const.i.tution tolerates slavery. We are responsible for it because we do not join in the declaration that all men are created free and equal, and apply that doctrine to the African slaves of the South; because we do not declare that those slaves are equal to us, and therefore of right free.

We are required by the Republican party to unite with them in advocating that doctrine, and to declare besides that slavery and polygamy are twin relics of barbarism. If we join them in all these declarations of principle; if we join them in advocating these measures, then, of course, the country will be quiet. But, sir, who is responsible for the agitation?

Is it not the party that calls for legislation? Has the Democratic party ever asked the national Legislature to establish slavery in her Territory?

No, sir; but the Republican party comes into this Hall and demands that the power of the Government should be interposed to exclude slavery from the Territories. Because we do not agree with them; because we do not think as they do; and because we do not vote as they do; because we do not acquiesce in these propositions, why, then we are responsible for this agitation, and they are not! They ask us to adopt the maxim that no more slave States shall be admitted into the Union, and because we do not agree with them on that subject, we are the agitators, and they are not.

Mr. Chairman, from what source do we learn this new doctrine? Do we find it in the legislation of our forefathers? Are there any restrictions in the Const.i.tution of the United States on the subject, or any grant of power to prohibit slavery in a Territory when that Territory is organized?

Is there anything in the Const.i.tution of the United States to justify it--and I appeal to that as the very first example of our forefathers in the administration of this Government--is there anything in that instrument which authorizes you to say that a State shall not be admitted into the Union because its const.i.tution tolerates slavery?

I differ from gentlemen upon the Republican side of the House as to the manner in which I would learn a lesson front the example of our forefathers. I would not search for it in their private declarations. I would search for their legislative record. We are legislators, and for our legislation we want legislative precedents. I care not whether the opinions of the founders of the Republic were for slavery or against it, if the legislation of which they were the authors corresponded with the views I entertain. What judge of any court, what lawyer who wished to ascertain the true doctrine of a case, would search for the private opinions of the judge when the reports bristled with adjudicated cases from which he could learn the true doctrine which he had expressed under oath and in the discharge of his duties? When you search for the opinions of our ancestors to guide us as legislators, look at their conduct as legislators, and not their private opinions. Every lawyer, every sensible man, every rational man, knows that that is the true test of the opinions of our ancestors upon a given subject. When they legislate under oath; when they legislate for the good of the whole country, they lay aside their private opinions and their peculiar prejudices.

Now, sir, what do we find in the Const.i.tution of the United States which inculcates the doctrine that slavery must not be extended into the Territories? I call the attention of gentlemen to the first clause of section nine, article one of the Const.i.tution:

"The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808, but a tax or duty may be imposed upon such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person."

In order, Mr. Chairman, that there may be no mistake about the meaning of that clause of the Const.i.tution, I send to the Clerk's desk, to be read, an extract from Elliott's Debates.

The Clerk read from Elliott's Debates, (Yate's Minutes,) pages 35 and 36, as follows:

"By the ninth section of this article, the importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited prior to the year 1808, but a duty may be imposed on such importation not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

"The design of this clause is to prevent the General Government from prohibiting the importation of slaves, but the same reasons which caused them to strike out the word 'national,' and not admit the word 'stamps,'

influenced them here to guard against the word '_slaves_.' They anxiously sought to avoid the admission of expressions which might be odious in the ears of Americans, although they were willing to admit into their system those things which the expressions signified: and hence it is that the clause is so worded, as really to authorize the General Government to impose a duty of ten dollars on every foreigner who comes into a State to become a citizen, whether he comes absolutely free, or qualifiedly so as a servant, although this is contrary to the design of the framers, and the duty was only made to extend to the importation of slaves.

"This clause was the subject of a great diversity of sentiment in the convention; as the system was reported by the Committee of Detail, the provision was general, that such importation should not be prohibited, without confining it to any particular period. This was rejected by eight States; Georgia, South Carolina, and I think North Carolina, voting for it.

"We were then told by the delegates of the two first of those States, that their States would never agree to a system which put it in the power of the General Government to prevent the importation of slaves, and that they, as delegates from those States, must withhold their a.s.sent from such a system.

"A committee of one member from each State was chosen by ballot to take this part of the system under their consideration, and to endeavor to agree upon some report which should reconcile those States; to this committee also was referred the following proposition, which had been reported by the Committee of Detail, namely: 'No navigation act shall be pa.s.sed without the a.s.sent of two-thirds of the members present in each House;' a proposition which the staple and commercial States were solicitous to retain, lest their commerce should be placed too much under the power of the eastern States, but which these last States were as anxious to reject. This committee, of which also I had the honor to be a member, met and took under their consideration the subjects committed to them. I found the _eastern_ States, notwithstanding their _aversion to slavery_, were very willing to indulge the southern States at least with temporary liberty to prosecute the _slave trade_, provided the southern States would in their turn gratify them, by laying no restriction on navigation acts, and after a very little time, the committee, by a great majority, agreed on a report, by which the General Government was to be prohibited from preventing the importation of slaves for a limited time, and the restrictive clause relative to navigation acts was to be omitted."

Mr. LANDRUM. Now, Mr. Chairman, we are asked to legislate to exclude slavery from the Territories, because slavery is a moral wrong, because it is a sin against G.o.d, and because it is a crime against humanity. And we are invoked to adopt that legislation by the example of our forefathers.

Now, what precedent do they furnish us in this clause of the Const.i.tution?

The Const.i.tution of the United States did make regulations in regard to the slavery question. One of those regulations was to permit the African slave trade until the year 1808. Now, sir, was there anything so morally wrong in the African slave trade; was it any such crime against humanity as to deter the ancestors of those gentlemen from coming into a Union which permitted the African slave trade? Why, sir, Ma.s.sachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire, voted to extend the limitation against the prohibition of that traffic from 1800 to 1808. Does the honorable chairman of this committee (Mr. BUFFINGTON) blush for his ancestors because they knew so little of the primary truths of common morality, as expounded by the gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. FERRY,) in the commencement of this debate, soon after the organization of this House, in voting such a provision as that?

The State of Ma.s.sachusetts was a sovereign State before she entered into this Confederacy, unabridged by any limitation. She could have prevented her citizens then, as the United States does now, from partic.i.p.ating in the slave trade even between foreign ports in foreign nations; and yet your ancestors not only voted with South Carolina and Georgia, who refused to come into the Union unless the African slave trade was permitted so long as they desired it, but in coming into that Union, it gave to the citizens of Ma.s.sachusetts, too, a like authority to engage in that trade.

What a sin against G.o.d, what a crime against humanity, did these Ma.s.sachusetts legislators vote to perpetuate! And yet, I imagine, the honorable Chairman is proud of his ancestors; and we are told now that because we will not join you in the hue-and-cry against slavery, and do not legislate to exclude slavery from the Territories, we are the authors of the evils with which the country is afflicted. You are not satisfied with our silence, our inaction; you say that we want to perpetuate a crime against humanity, and have departed from the lesson of wisdom inculcated by our ancestors.

Sir, I believe in the teachings of the ancient patriots. I take their precedents, and although not _now_ in favor of the reopening of the African slave trade, because it is inexpedient, (though, as I do not consider the question before the country, I confess I have not studied it,) yet I venerate those legislators who sacrificed their prejudices in order that they might get South Carolina and Georgia into the Union, who refused to come in without it.

The gentleman from Connecticut, who first opened this debate, and who, I believe, is not now in his seat, remarked in his speech, that evil, disguised in whatever form it might be, would only produce evil; and therefore you must first lay down a moral code, and no matter what results it apparently leads you to, you must never violate it. Sir, his ancestors told a different tale. They said, in admitting South Carolina and Georgia into the Union, that, although they objected to the slave trade, more good would be accomplished than by prohibiting the slave trade and losing those two States.

That is the policy which guided our ancestors; and now, what do we ask?

What does the Democratic party ask? Do we ask this Government to legislate slavery into the Territories? We have never made any such demand. We have never _yet_ asked anything of this Government but to let it alone. And I a.s.sure you, that New Hampshire, Ma.s.sachusetts, and Connecticut, voted to perpetuate the slave trade, and to give her citizens the right to engage in it from 1800 to 1808, by that clause in the Const.i.tution which gives the citizens of each State the rights of the citizens of every other State. She relinquished the power which they had to forbid her own citizens from partic.i.p.ating in the slave trade, and opened the door to them. That is what your ancestors did in the Const.i.tution under which this Government was formed, and which is the basis of all its legislation. And yet, you can give no legislative encouragement to slavery; you must exclude it wherever you have the power to exclude it, not as a matter of policy--at least that is not the ground upon which you base your action--but because it is a moral wrong, and a crime against humanity.

But is that all the legislation in the Const.i.tution about slavery? Why, sir, they inserted a clause in the Const.i.tution authorizing the recapture of fugitive slaves when they entered the sovereign territory of these New England States which have now such an aborrence of the doctrine. As the meaning of that clause has been a subject of dispute, I ask the Clerk to read a short extract from the debates in the Virginia convention which adopted the Const.i.tution, in which Mr. Madison explained the meaning of it. I hope I shall be able to show that we have some first-rate pro-slavery legislation in the Const.i.tution before I get through with this argument.

The Clerk read, as follows:

"At present, if any slave elopes to any of those States where slaves are free, he becomes emanc.i.p.ated by their laws. For the laws of the States are uncharitable to one another in this respect. But in this Const.i.tution, 'no person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.' This clause was expressly inserted to enable owners of slaves to reclaim them.

This is a better security than any that now exists. No power is given to the General Government to interpose with respect to the property in slaves now held by the States. The taxation of this State being equal only to its representation, such a tax cannot be laid as he supposes. They cannot prevent the importation of slaves for twenty years; but after that period they can. The gentlemen from South Carolina and Georgia argued in this manner: 'We have now liberty to import this species of property, and much of the property now possessed has been purchased or otherwise acquired in contemplation of improving it by the a.s.sistance of imported slaves. What would be the consequence of hindering us from it? The slaves of Virginia would rise in value, and we would be obliged to go to your markets.' I need not expatiate on this subject. Great as the evil is, a dismemberment of the Union would be worse. If those States should disunite from the other States, for not including them in the temporary continuance of this traffic, they might solicit and obtain aid from foreign Powers."

Mr. LANDRUM. Yes, Mr. Chairman, those were the motives that influenced the framers of the Const.i.tution. The several States of New England which, according to the testimony of Mr. Madison, had up to that time refused to deliver up fugitive slaves, voluntarily renounced the right of prohibiting it, and voted that the slave-catcher should have authority to enter therein, and carry back his slave to bondage. Do I want any better pro-slavery men than these? Where, sir, was this notion of "a sin against G.o.d and a crime against humanity" when they voted for that clause?

I will again refer to the remark of the gentleman from Connecticut, which I know he will not apply to his ancestors in Connecticut who voted for this pro-slavery provision--that "evil, disguised under whatever form it may be, can be productive only of evil." He would not denounce his ancestors as hypocrites because they left out of the Const.i.tution the weird "slave;" for Mr. Roger Sherman says that the expression was objectionable "to ears polite," I suppose. Mr. Madison and Mr. Yates tell us what they meant by the description "held to service or labor." I know the gentleman would not say that his ancestors were disguising in a particular name an evil, and thereby adopting it.

No, sir; slavery was a good thing; but it had a bad name, according to the polite phraseology of the day, and, knowing that "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet," they changed the term "slave" to that of a "person held to service or labor."

But, sir, in regard to this African slave trade provision, it was esteemed so important that, although provision was made for an amendment to the Const.i.tution, applying to almost everything else within its compa.s.s, except, I believe, to the clause, that no State should be deprived of her equal representation in the Senate without her consent, this precious article of the slave trade clause was not to be interfered with, under any circ.u.mstances, prior to the year 1808.

I think, Mr. Chairman, I have disposed of the religious argument, the moral argument, the conscience argument against slavery, derived from the lessons taught by the example of our forefathers. Do not tell me any more that Mr. Madison thought slavery was an evil; because these thoughts controlled not the action of his public position. Do not tell me that Washington and Jefferson were opposed to slavery abstractly, after that; because we find even New England men, with all their prejudices, as good pro-slavery men as South Carolina and Georgia wanted--for they were the only States that made a question on this African slave trade. Whatever future congressional protection to property may become necessary, all that we have ever _yet_ asked, Mr. Chairman, is that Congress shall not legislate at all on the question of slavery in the Territories. But your patriotic forefathers did legislate. They legislated to protect the African slave trade. They gave permission to the citizens of Ma.s.sachusetts to enter into the slave trade along with the citizens of South Carolina and Georgia, and they gave us a fugitive slave law. That is the sort of legislation which they gave us in the Const.i.tution, which is the basis of the Government under which we live.

There are other clauses in the Const.i.tution, sir, which show that this matter of slavery was not neglected. In the apportionment of direct taxation and representation, it was stipulated that three-fifths of the slaves should be represented on this floor. They were noticed, and noticed as a degraded cla.s.s, as unequal to free men; because, if they had been considered equal to free men we would have been ent.i.tled to full representation for them on this floor. But, sir, they were treated as a degraded cla.s.s--as a cla.s.s unequal to free men. Their masters were given a representation in this House in proportion to three-fifths of their numbers, and the direct taxation was to be a.s.sessed at the same ratio on the slave States. Now, I allude to this subject, not to show boastingly, as it has been said on this floor, that we have a slave representation here. In that very provision of the Const.i.tution the people of the northern States derived all the advantage--the people of the southern States all the loss; for no money, scarcely, has ever been raised by direct taxation. The money for the support of the Government is collected in an entirely different manner. If taxes were a.s.sessed on that principle, by a system of direct taxation, we would have derived some benefit from the three-fifth provision; but, as it is, you derive all the advantage, and we none of it.

The principle which governed the convention in inserting that provision was the belief that this was the proportion in which the labor of the slave contributed to the wealth of the country, comparatively to that of the free man; and as, according to the political doctrines of that day, taxation and representation went hand in hand, and as a slave produced only three-fifths as much annual income as a free man, their masters were only ent.i.tled to that much representation. So it is in the electoral college. There the slaves are enumerated in the same proportion, and their masters are deprived of a voice to that extent.

In that connection I want to have read the opinions of a venerable gentleman, whose authority will not be disputed upon this floor by the Republican party--the opinions of Mr. John Adams. The Clerk will read from the Madison Papers, page 29.

The Clerk read, as follows:

"Mr. John Adams observed, that the numbers of people were taken by this article as an index of the wealth of the State, and not as subjects of taxation. That as to this matter it was of no consequence by what name you called your people, whether by that of freemen or of slaves. That in some countries the laboring poor were called freemen, in others they were called slaves; but that the difference as to the State was imaginary only.

What matters it whether a landlord employing ten laborers on his farm gives them annually as much money as will buy them the necessaries of life, or give them those necessaries at short hand? The ten laborers add as much wealth annually to the State, increase its exports as much, in the one case as the other. Certainly five hundred freemen produce no more profits, no greater surplus for the payment of taxes, than five hundred slaves. Therefore the State in which are the laborers called freemen, should be taxed no more than that in which are those called slaves.

Suppose, by any extraordinary operation of nature or of law, one-half the laborers of a State could, in the course of one night, be transformed into slaves, would the State be made the poorer, or the less able to pay taxes?