Now, I respectfully submit that no sentiment, no opinion ever took a firmer hold of the Northern mind--ever struck more deeply into it--ever became more pervading, or was ever adopted after maturer consideration, than this: That it is impolitic and wrong to convert free territory into slave territory. With such convictions the North will never consent to such conversion. Never! never!
This was the view of Mr. CLAY. His opinion always had great weight at the North. Mr. CLAYTON, of Delaware, declared to the same purpose, and avowed that Northern men could not be expected to consent to this. We, at least, know how this opinion is consecrated in the hearts of the people of the North, and how idle it is for statesmen to run counter to it.
We are told by the gentleman from Maryland, that all the South wants is to have the force of the decision of the Supreme Court acknowledged as to that part of the territory south of the line, in consideration of which the South will yield what she gains by that decision in the territory north; and also that we must do this, or the slave States will be driven to join those States that have seceded. Now, it is due to frankness to say, that the North does not acquiesce in that statement; that the point as made by the gentleman from Maryland, has been _decided_ by the Supreme Court. We know that the Chief Justice of that court has expressed his own opinion that way; but we don"t know that it has been _decided_ by that court. But if it has been so decided, the very ground of the decision is a misapprehension. If I rightly understand the language of Chief Justice TANEY, he insists that the Const.i.tution expressly affirms the right of property in slaves. I think it does not. The North thinks it does not.
Mr. SMITH then proceeded to discuss the facts in the Dred Scott case, and the various opinions declared by the judges, showing that the decision did not extend so far as claimed by Mr. JOHNSON, and that the question of the _right_ to hold slaves in the Territories was not presented by the record in that case.
Mr. WICKLIFFE:--There were two questions involved in the Dred Scott case. One was, the authority of Scott to sue; the other was, upon the const.i.tutionality of the Missouri Compromise. Both these were decided in that case, and both were decided by the Supreme Court years ago.
Mr. SMITH:--I am aware of the views taken by the gentleman from Kentucky. I am stating as a matter of fact how this decision is regarded by a large portion of the people of the North. I am aware that the Southern construction of the decision is different, and some at the North concur in it. I am trying to see how the majority propositions will suit the people who agree with the Northern view.
I understand it is claimed that the court decided that slaves were property, and that the Const.i.tution did not permit any restraint to be laid upon the owners of that property in the Territories. Yes, the court did decide that the owner had the right to take his slaves into the Territory and hold them there; and to that extent they were property. It is a prevalent idea at the North that the Southern construction of this decision is not fair, and that it would be dangerous to adopt it.
We do not subscribe to the doctrine that the Const.i.tution expressly affirms the right of property in slaves. We may be wrong; it may be a mere misapprehension. But with their present opinions, the people of the North will hesitate long before they make this express affirmation a part of the organic _law_.
Again; if the Const.i.tution affirms this right, and was understood to do so by its framers, what was the need of the rendition clause? The Const.i.tution is the supreme law in the free States as well as in the slave States. Under this construction the rights of the owner could have been enforced like any other right of property in the courts of law, without any provision for the rendition of slaves.
These are some of the opinions that are entertained at the North. They may be right or they may be wrong, but they have been deliberately adopted, and they prevail extensively. They cannot be changed by our action here. In all we do they must be respected. They are _const.i.tutionally_ entertained.
This proposition to carry slavery into the Territories, opens the discussion of the merits of that inst.i.tution. Gentlemen say they wish to stop the discussion; that there has been too much of it already; that such a discussion would be especially unfortunate now. I do not propose to enter upon it here. But I desire to know in what manner you could more effectually invite discussion than by placing your proposed amendments before the people?
You must not forget that the people of the North believe slavery is both a moral and a political evil. They recognize the right of the States to have it, to regulate it as they please, without interference, direct or indirect; but when it is proposed to extend it into territory where it did not before exist, it becomes a political question, in which they are interested, in which they have a right to interfere, and in which they will interfere. Such an attempt they consider it their duty to resist by all const.i.tutional means.
The establishing of slavery in the Territories is the practical exclusion of free labor in them. True, there is no direct provision for the exclusion of free labor in your propositions, but such will certainly be their effect. I appeal to gentlemen from the South to say from their own experience whether free labor _can_ be employed side by side with slave labor. This presents another consideration. You of the South ask us to guarantee a right which you say is very important and very dear to you. You ask that your children may enter into and possess these new Territories. We know it. But the North asks the same privilege. We want our children to go there, and live on the labor of their own free hands. They are excluded if slavery goes there before us.
Mr. PRESIDENT, the people of the North do understand, that we are in a contest--a great and important contest. Yet it is one that can be carried on without trampling upon each other"s rights--without attempting to secure any unfair advantage. That is the way the North proposes to carry on this contest in relation to the _extension_ of slavery. This contest is between the owners of slaves on the one side, and all the _free men_ of this great nation on the other.
There is another fact that should be kept in view. The Territories are the property not of the individual States, but of the General Government. They are held by the Government in trust, I grant. But in trust for whom? For the whole _people_ of the Union; not in trust for thirty-four distinct States. The idea that these Territories are subject to part.i.tion--that South Carolina has the right to demand her thirty-fourth part of them in severalty, is one that by the North cannot be entertained. It is this idea which has produced that other more mischievous one--that an equilibrium must be maintained between the free and the slave States; in other words, between freedom and slavery. Where did this idea creep into the Const.i.tution? It never has found, and it never will find, favor with the people of the North.
We may talk around this question--we may discuss its incidents, its history, and its effects, as much and as long as we please. And after all is said--disguise it as we may--it is a contest between the great opposing elements of civilization--whether the country shall be possessed and developed and ruled by the labor of slaves or of freemen.
Leave it where it is, and all is well. We can live in peace while it is a State inst.i.tution; extend it, and who can answer for the consequences? Leave it where it is! I humbly suggest that in that direction lays the only path of peace. So long as the Territories are common property, so long will the people insist upon protecting their interests in them. In a Government like ours, conflicts will ensue.
The Const.i.tution provides the proper and peaceful way of settling them; and it is not by a part.i.tion of every subject in which a mutual interest exists.
Mr. SEDDON:--Does the gentleman consider this a nation, or a federal union of States?
Mr. SMITH:--If I did not consider this a nation I should certainly not be here.
Mr. SEDDON:--Is not the whole machinery of the Government federative?
Is not its whole action that of a confederation? Is not the recent election of Mr. LINCOLN a proof of the fact? He was elected by less than a majority of the people.
Mr. SMITH:--In all the action of the Government with other governments, we are a nation as much as France or England. In every thing pertaining to the acquisition of territory we are a nation. The rights of the States are preserved in the Const.i.tution, I admit, but their power is to be exercised subject to the powers reserved by the Const.i.tution to the General Government. In all that respects these powers the Government is supreme.
I have only sought to state some of the opinions which are conscientiously entertained at the North upon subjects connected with these propositions. They _are_ entertained there, and they must be respected by the Conference.
This doctrine of the preservation of the balance of power is a new doctrine. It was unknown to the framers of our Const.i.tution. In my opinion it is a most mischievous doctrine to the country, and can only produce the most pernicious results. It is closely akin to the doctrine once broached in the Senate of a _duality_ of the Executive, which, extended, would require a President for every sectional interest. Such ideas were never popular at the North. I do not think they would operate very well in practice at the South.
Mr. CLEVELAND:--Will the gentleman give way for a motion to adjourn?
Mr. SMITH:--Certainly.
On motion of Mr. CLEVELAND the Conference adjourned to ten o"clock to-morrow.
FOURTEENTH DAY.
WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, _February 21st, 1861._
The Conference was called to order by the President, at ten o"clock and fifteen minutes A.M., and prayer was offered by Rev. Dr. STOCKTON.
The Journal of yesterday was read and approved.
Mr. WICKLIFFE:--As I stated yesterday, I now wish to call up my resolutions relating to the termination of the debate, and to have a vote taken upon them.
Mr. CHASE:--Will Governor WICKLIFFE permit me to make a formal motion, which cannot give rise to discussion? It is this: The resolutions pa.s.sed by the Legislature of Ohio, under which myself and my colleagues hold our seats, make it my duty to lay before the Conference the resolves I now offer. I ask to have them read, laid upon the table, and printed.
The resolutions were read, and the motion of Mr. CHASE concurred in.
The resolutions are as follow:--
_Resolved_, That it is inexpedient to proceed to final action on the grave and important matters involved in the resolutions of the State of Virginia, in compliance with which this Convention has a.s.sembled, and in the several reports of the majority and minority of the committee to which said resolutions were referred, until opportunity has been given to all of the States to partic.i.p.ate in deliberation and action under them, and ample time has been allowed for such deliberation and action.
_Resolved, therefore_, That this Convention adjourn to meet in the city of Washington, on the 4th day of April next; and that the President be requested to address a letter to the Governors of the several States not now represented in this body, urging the appointment and attendance of Commissioners.
Mr. EWING:--I wish to state here that I do not concur in these resolutions.
Mr. WICKLIFFE:--I now offer two resolutions, one providing that debate shall cease upon the report of the committee, at 10 o"clock to-morrow.
The other, that five minutes shall be allowed to the mover of an amendment to explain it, with five minutes to the committee to reply.
Upon reflection, I will offer a third: That a motion to strike out and insert shall not be divided. If desired, a vote may be taken on the resolutions separately, as I wish to have each stand upon its own merits. I will not discuss these resolutions, for I think all must be impressed with the necessity for pa.s.sing them now.
The resolutions were as follow:--
_Resolved_, 1st, That at 10 o"clock, the 22d February, 1861, all debate upon the report of the Committee of one from each State shall cease, and the Convention will proceed to vote, and continue to vote until the whole subject shall have been disposed of.
2d. If an amendment be offered by the Commissioners of any State, or the minority of such Commissioners, five minutes is allowed for explanation, and the like time is allowed to the committee to resist the amendment, if they desire to do so; and the mover of the amendment, or any member of the same State, may have five minutes for reply.
3d. A motion to strike out and insert shall not be divided.
Mr. CHITTENDEN:--I shall not debate these resolutions. As I am engaged in taking notes of the discussion, I cannot enter into a contest for the floor, and I would not if I could. My State has not occupied a moment of time on the general subject, nor are her delegates very anxious to address the Convention at all.
Whether the Conference will give one of us a few minutes or not, is simply a question of policy, of which I am not a disinterested judge.
It is possible that some suggestions might be made which would be worthy of attention.
Mr. GOODRICH:--I move to amend by inserting Sat.u.r.day, instead of to-morrow, in the first resolution.